Antone Roundy wrote:
Getting back to how to use static documents for a chain of instances,
that could easily be done as follows. The following assumes that the
current feed document and the archive documents will each contain 15
entries.
The first 15 instances of the feed document do not
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0700 6/29/05, James M Snell wrote:
1. After going through a bunch of potential XML encryption use cases,
it really doesn't seem to make any sense at all to use XML Encryption
below the document element level. The I-D will not cover anything
about
Hi James,
On 29/06/2005, at 10:09 AM, James M Snell wrote:
1. This appears to be addressed at solving the same problem as Bob
Wyman's RFC3229+feed proposal [http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/
2004/09/using_rfc3229_w.html]. Do you have any empiracle data
similar to what Bob provides @
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hi James,
On 29/06/2005, at 10:09 AM, James M Snell wrote:
1. This appears to be addressed at solving the same problem as Bob
Wyman's RFC3229+feed proposal [http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/
2004/09/using_rfc3229_w.html]. Do you have any empiracle data
similar
On 30/06/2005, at 1:41 PM, James M Snell wrote:
The value is that I would really like to see a common and
consistent way of attaching behavioral semantics to the feed rather
than each individual vendor / spec defining their own app and impl
specific methods. It could be done without
At 3:16 PM -0600 6/30/05, Antone Roundy wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2005, at 12:58 PM, James M Snell wrote:
6. If an entry contains any enclosure links, the digital
signature SHOULD cover the referenced resources. Enclosure links
that are not covered are considered untrusted and pose a
At 11:58 AM -0700 6/30/05, James M Snell wrote:
3. When signing complete Atom documents (atom:feed and top level
atom:entry), Inclusive Canonicalization with no pre-c14n
normalization is required.
There seems to be many more interoperability issues with Inclusive
Canonicalization than with
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Same as above. Even though it is included-by-reference, the referenced
content is still a part of the message.
No, it isn't. The reference is part of the message.
+1
The signature should only cover the bits that are actually in the
element (feed or entry) that is
Ok, this is fine. I'll back this out of the draft.
Bob Wyman wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Same as above. Even though it is included-by-reference, the
referenced content is still a part of the message.
No, it isn't. The reference is part of the message.
+1
The signature should only
