, 2015 (2 weeks) to this CfC.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)
www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#webintents
[2] http://w3c.github.io/dap-charter/DeviceAPICharter.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/webplatform-charter.html
6, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>
> This is a call for consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of FindText API; deadline 14 October (1 week)
>
> This FindText API is joint deliverable of the WebApps WG and Web Annotation
> WG (listed as
+1 to FPWD of FindText API
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> +1 to FPWD
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am happy to have this documents published as FPWD.
>
> Ivan
>
>
> > On 06 Oct 2015, at 22:32 , F
he spec's contents and the specification may be updated.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this
e-mail by 14 October at the latest. Positive response is preferred and
encouraged, even a +1 will do Silence will be considered as agreement with the
proposa
no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Chair XML Security WG
fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch
> On May 8, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> [ + Marcos and Frederick ]
cases
going forward? This might be useful before considering venue for the work and
detailed issues. (Is there a public web page with information on current
implementations?)
thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 5:22 AM, Nilsson,
versions.
This Working Group’s deliverables must address issues of accessibility,
internationalization, mobility,security and privacy.
]]
Discussed at 4 Sep teleconference [2]
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair DAP
@fjhirsch
[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter
[2
Dear Tab Atkins Jr. ,
The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the
Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ambient Light Events published on 13 Dec
2012. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to
send us comments!
The Working Group's response to
Dear Marcos Caceres ,
The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing
Version 1.1 published on 3 Mar 2011. Thank you for having taken the time to
review the document and to send us comments!
The
battery
- isBeingCharged: true if the current power source is a battery and is
being charged
What do you think?
This seems clearer and more straightforward.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 11, 2010, at 10:47 AM, ext Max Froumentin wrote:
On 10/05/2010 17:36, timeless
in the proposed editors draft [1] this is section 10.2 item #3
I suggest we change 3a from "The URI attribute ..." to be "For
references that are not same-document references, the URI attribute..."
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM
Andreas
Thanks, good catch.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM, ext Andreas Kuehne wrote:
Hi all,
just a minor comment found by build a test case :
Section 7.1. Common Constraints for Signature Generation and
Validation
1. [...]
2
looks like the same net effect on
implementations.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:17 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I have fund a number of issues with the dig sig spec:
1. The conformance model is all screwy: it mixes conformance criteria
for too many products (including ones on which were it makes no sense,
like signature documents
3
fourth paragraph; and References for [XMLDSIG11], [XMLSecAlgs],
[XMLDSIG-Properties].
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0051.html
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Thanks Andreas
Yes it seems counter-intuitive not to canonicalize XML, but it is
really only needed once the XML has been parsed, and avoiding
canonicalization saves resources.
Are you aware of the XML
]? These are intended to improve
simplicity, usability, streamability, reduced attack surface etc. Your
comments would be very welcome!
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xml-c14n2-20100304/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmldsig-core2-20100304/
On
, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:04 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
kue...@trustable.de wrote:
from the implementors perspective these modifications don't
introduce too much trouble. But I'm a little bit concerned about
the explicit ban of canonicalizations for
review comments.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
- start -
(A) Revised Proposal (correction for limiting canonicalization of XML
to same document references and backward compatibility)
Disallow all Transforms except for a single canonicalization
transform that is required for every
s05] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-2126/";>
[s06]
[s07] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/xml-c14n11"/>
[s08]
[s09] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/
xmlenc#sha256"/>
[s10] dGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSBzaWduYXR1cmUK...
[s11]
http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overv
--
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/
-20/
* XML Signature 2.0: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG
On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Last week the XML Security WG published LCWDs of two specs the Widget
Digital
e had to date.
This should not break any implementations but make it easier to find
and work with the schema.
Comments/corrections welcome.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" >
Date: January
Signature Properties is about to enter Last Call.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
On Jan 7, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
The XML Security WG is considering changing the syntax of the Profile
and
+1, duplicating material is a recipe for disaster.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:22 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Can you please update this to just be a delta?
As far as I know W3C specs, delta documents are
how about "Indexed Sequential Web Database", losing the acronym, even
if familiar to those who work with databases? (not web-indexed,
however...)
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:11 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
Web-Indexed-Storage
On Mon, No
detail on the use cases or
additional use cases?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 20, 2009, at 10:12 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi,
Reliably identified Websites can send and receive SMS except to
premium rate numbers.
There seems to be no worldwide pattern to recognize
te numbers.
Do we need to go into more detail on these two (as examples)?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:15 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
These are reasons, but I think the greatest cause of our concern is
that we have not seen any examples of how policies c
chair)
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:49 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Jonas, Maciej,
It seems that the policy that you would accept would be:
/.+/match>
Let's see how DAP will evolve then.
T
idea what most directories are for or where to
navigate). Arbitrary directory navigation for writing files is not a
good idea.
More importantly we have to be careful with analogies.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:14 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Nov 1
ty as
an integral part of API development, while also developing policy
mechanisms, thus I do not think the view you mention is "widely held".
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 10, 2009, at 8:47 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 10, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Robin Berjo
David
Would it be possible for you to summarize what you think the issue is,
as far as architecture and technical disparities, as a first step?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Hi,
As discussed on the webapps call, in
WG from
everyone who can help the DAP WG and I'd like to make sure that
somehow we have this discussion during TPAC.
Thus Agenda topic for joint DAP/Webapps-Widget is "Security
Considerations, including HTML5".
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Co-Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
ature in the widget package,
syntax correctness, presence of required property elements, and use
of Role attribute for author and distributor signatures.
2. Signature value verification when specific algorithms are used for
a given input.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On
Christian
You are correct, thank you for catching this error.
I have updated the editors draft accordingly.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#example
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Oct 6, 2009, at 9:44 AM, ext Breitschwerdt, Christian, VF-Group
wrote:
Hi Marcos
isn't the mere knowledge of the level of activity on a device a
possible privacy concern, and couldn't the pattern of activity offer a
traffic analysis type opportunity?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Se
this is correct, aren't these fundamentally different?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Aug 27, 2009, at 2:06 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi All,
Here are a couple of the Last Call comments to WARP LCWD [1].
They were already partially presented in my emails [2] and
So the issue is not confidentiality, it is inappropriate script
execution. Got it.
Thanks Anne
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:34 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I might not have time to address your larger set of questions before I
leave on vacation
policy
3. if policy disallows then the browser does not allow the content to
be used.
In any case, doesn't this open an attack to get the content by
sniffing the wire for the response content, regardless of the header?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://arunrang
22 Editorial: Section 4.5
Where is the full list of headers defined? is a reference needed?
23 Editorial: Section 5.1 #1
Can the list of origins be unbounded in practice?
24 Editorial: Section 6
Mark "Everything with regards to redirects might change a little to
more closely adhere to HTTP redirect semantics." as an editors note.
25 Editorial: Section 6.1
some of the spacing between items seems to need additional space
26 Editorial: Section 7.3
Replace "progresing" with "progressing"
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
x27;m copying this message with the XML Security WG.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-Schema
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-rngschema/
On Jun 25, 2009, at 7:13 AM, ex
st wg call to freeze the spec but I
guess not... )
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jun 8, 2009, at 7:07 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Priestley, Mark,
VF-Group wrote:
Hi Art, All,
Vodafone has some late comments which it would like to provide t
XML Signature 1.1 should be referenced. It defines the URI for the
algorithms, context for use in XML Signature, and references etc.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jun 8, 2009, at 8:30 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Also, DSA-SHA-1, RSA-SHA-256, and ECDSA-SHA
Thanks for the review Josh. These all look editorial to me and I
assume we can handle them during CR.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:30 AM, ext timeless wrote:
Hi, apologies for the late comments.
I hope all of my comments are of an editorial nature. The
XML Signature 1.1 notes that the order of certificates in X.509Data is
not specified.
http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-X509Data
Is this really expected to be an issue, with long cert chains?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jun 4, 2009
I assume this issue is closed with no need to add this text, given the
subsequent thread. If this is incorrect please note that on the list.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 5, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
On May 4, 2009, at 10:13 AM
t;Although" etc as a note.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#algorithms
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
I was aware of what you quoted Marcos, but it was implicit. If it is
ok, then I'm not sure why we've been having this email thread...
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 5, 2009, at 6:38 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Arthur Barsto
The spec is more than a UA spec, it also describes signature format
which affects parties other than the UA (e.g. audit etc)
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 4, 2009, at 12:42 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Frederick Hirsch
wrote:
The
[XMLDSIG-
Properties] and this specification.
We can add, "A signer MUST place the dsp:Identifier signature property
into the signature when generating the signature." if necessary.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On May 4, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Bos
] http://www.w3.org/Security/
[4] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item63
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
. Updated status of the document section.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
comments inline, including proposals. thanks for the review
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:01 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Frederick,
Some tiny editorial changes
I think we should add the following sub-section to the Status of
This Document
+1
I don't see the need for that paragraph.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 29, 2009, at 6:36 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
Hi Frederick,
Some tiny editorial changes
I think we should add the following sub-section to the Status of
This Document:
[[
Note to
ase let me know of any issues with these
changes or any other corrections by tomorrow morning Eastern time.
Thank you
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#naming-convention-for-an-author-signature
and
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widg
lly think P&C should use uppercase MUSTs etc.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
necessary if a security issue is discovered with the currently
required algorithm.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 24, 2009, at 5:20 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
"I would like to see some text cautioning authors not to rely on
this algorithm, since it is opt
section 9
Added FIPS-186-3 reference
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
Note that we will need to update the Signature Properties reference,
when that specification is published with this specification.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
I agree . Also to be clear Mark, I believe you are saying VF supports
a MUST in the XML Signature 1.1 specification.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:15 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Marcos,
Surely the logic should support algorithm evolution in that way
I've added this to the Widgets Signature specification.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:18 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Thanks Frederick!
-Original Message-
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hir...@nokia.com]
Sent: 22 April
blogs and also to see if any new mistakes have been introduced.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:53 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Thanks Frederick and Marcos - responses inline.
Only a couple of questions left :)
Regards,
Mark
-Original Message
s into the requirements
document, and thus possibly the requirements section in general.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
it will
be correct to talk about "files".
I don't think we can always expect creation of a physical file for
processing. Suggest not making any change here.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 22, 2009, at 6:45 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 20
I agree that the sentence should be dropped.
I'll take an editorial pass today to remove that sentence, address the
agreed changes on Mark's editorial comments and to remove the Created
material.
Thanks for noting this one.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 22
update of Signature Properties, thus
remove section 9 from widget signature
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#sigproperties
any other comments received that we might have missed?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Bos
if there is no need for the Created property in the Widgets Signature
spec I suggest we remove it, though keep what we have in the Signature
Properties specification.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 15, 2009, at 5:45 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Dear All
Mark
Please find responses inline. Thanks for the review.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Hi Art, All,
Please find below my editorial comments and requests for
clarifications
based on the new WD [1]. While it
ments the OPTIONAL [Widgts-DigSig] specification, in which case
the user agent MUST make signature documents available to the
implementation of the [Widgets-DigSig] specification."
This message should complete ACTION-329 which should be closed.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
mentations.
So apart from personal preference I do not see why a change is needed.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:00 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
Although I agree that it was probably a short-sightedne
+1
I do not understand the attack, but can envision cases where
precluding access could cause problems. Examples might be user "see
what is signed" or access to signature properties.
Is this an access control issue rather than a general specification
rule?
regards, Frederick
algorithms should be required in Widget Signature.
Please share this additional information in your organization and
indicate if it would cause any change in position regarding the
mandatory to implement algorithms.
Thank you
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Se
ecure (and of course there are no attacks available
against the algorithms and so on).
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 2, 2009, at 5:20 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Hi Art, All,
I tracked down my original explanation with subsequent qualification
[1].
The pr
I ran this through the W3C validator and fixed validation errors and
warnings, it now validates cleanly.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
I have completed a major round of editorial updates to the Widget
s/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0982.html
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] added
Numerical order is the order based on the numeric portion of the
signature file name. Thus the highest numbered distributor signature
would be validated first.
to section 4, #6
---
replace
The ord
I think we should remove it.
Also, I revised the e.g. as follows
... undesireable and security relevant effects, such as overwriting of
startup or system files.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:00 PM, ext Hillebrand, Rainer wrote:
Dear Frederick,
I
comments inline, thanks for reviewing this
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:26 PM, ext Hillebrand, Rainer wrote:
Dear Marcos,
I hope to have less critical comments than in my last feedback email.
1. Section 7.1: change "The ds:SignatureMethod algo
No I agree, we are trying to stay away from legal statements , that
requires much more.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 10:40 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Frederick,
re author, would the term "creator" in the sentence from Thomas
help,
thi
author means creator...
also, ok with your proposed change
Within a widget package these signature files MUST be ordered based on
the numeric portion of the signature file name.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:41 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Frederick,
Th
Marcin
Thanks, for the careful review. some comment inline
[removed cross post, fails anyway]
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:04 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos, All,
Please find below my - mostly editorial - comments to the latest
digsig
Marcin
[removed cross-posting, since my posting would fail anyway]
comments inline
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:27 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
These are my further comments to the DigSig spec:
1. There is no section about typographic
n the same category as policy and other such
important considerations, which we have not detailed in the
specification.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:06 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi,
I support this view.
In the whole design of various widget signature
I think the draft provides enough assurance for the intended level of
use. If you want higher levels of assurance more will be required, but
I don't believe we have a requirement here for that.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:20 PM, ext Hillebrand, R
having used the
same signing key are from the same party .
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:14 PM, ext Hillebrand, Rainer wrote:
Hi Marcos!
I agree with your suggestions.
Best Regards,
Rainer
---
Sent from m
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:58 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Hi All,
As the author signature was something I had a hand in creating let
me add my 2 pence worth.
Rainer is correct in that the author signature need not actually
come from the author of the
I fixed one additional ordered list nit in widgets signature, so it
validates correctly.
When published the document date will need to be updated to the
publication date.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Marcos
I checked in another revision to fix the broken link in 7. 2 (last
sentence included s in span) and to fix various validation errors.
The latest revision looks ok to me now, version 1.85 of
Overview.src.html, version 1.93 of Overview.html
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
rs vs
working draft I think).
I also notice on a substantive level that you changed the namespace.
Was the reason to match a pre-existing choice for the Packaging and
Configuration? Is this an item for discussion?
The other changes looked good, thanks for improving the draft.
regards,
Completed additional changes to Editorial note in section 6, added
links to XML Security WG home page, list of comments on FPWD and
mailto link for comments on XML Signature 1.1.
Also fixed editorial nit, "final set" to "a final set"
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsc
WG agreed earlier that we would add this material.
4. Changed "Security Policy" to lowercase as appropriate.
This should complete all my editorial actions before publication.
Please review and let me know of any corrections or noted omissions.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Noki
I think the current text is clearer since it make clear which
direction to process the list, which would be ambiguous otherwise.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:40 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Hi Frederick,
Small comment. I would change the
bly should review whether we
need key length defined for each algorithm but can defer for now.
Will this change of sentence work ?
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
(for some reason this message of yours did not reach my personal
inbox, but it was on the list)
Hi Frederic
XML Security WG is also requesting feedback on the
FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Based on the discussion on today's call, I will add the following
editors note to Widget Signatu
FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#algorithms
XML Security WG continues to refine XML Signature
1.1 and is looking for feedback.
Thanks
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 19, 2009, at 6:17 AM, ext Hillebrand, Rainer wrote:
Dear Art,
May I give feedback on an old action item regarding the preference
for ECDSA vs. DSA
I include some updates and questions inline on Widget Signature with
pointers to mail archive.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Below is the draft agenda for the March 19 Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs
correction.
The latest draft also changes all usage of "widget user agent" to
"user agent".
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:46 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
[mp] My view is that whether zero, one or more signatures is processed
additional comment or corrections. Thanks
Marcos for suggestions to this wording.
(Also removed Inc from Nokia in title page)
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
recommended key length
Does this change make sense? Do you have any suggestion or comment?
Thanks for the careful review of the draft.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
[mp] While this is better I think it misses the fact that we are
strongly
, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:15 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Frederick,
On 3/17/09 1:01 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
The latest draft includes the revised text from Thomas.
Marcos, are you suggesting we add
ig Sig spec.
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#zip-relative-paths
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
