Re: Question: Status of Additional XML Security URIs

Hi Donald,

I would request removal of the XPointer transform: The new
XPath filter transform (in intersect mode, whatever form
we choose) is exactly equivalent.

Merlin

r/[email protected]/2002.06.04/23:33:32
>
>Hi Jospeh,
>
>I've been thinking I should polish it a little and submit it as an
>Informational RFC. A W3C Note or internal version of it could certainly
>be produced as well, same as the base XMLDSIG document is issued in both
>organizations.
>
>I'm not sure if there are any pending specific additions although there
>have been a few which have been discussed in generalities. I'd
>appreciate it if anyone who had some specific request for an addition
>could send me some specific wording.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>======================================================================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email protected]
> 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
> Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email protected]
>
>On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:48 -0400
>> From: Joseph Reagle <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Question: Status of Additional XML Security URIs
>> Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
>> Resent-From: [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> Donald, the "Additional XML Security URIs"  [1] draft will be expiring in
>> July. What should we do next with it? I don't think we've had many requests
>> for additions recently. Do you want to publish it as an Informational RFC?
>> Another option is to publish it on the W3C site. One could do it as a NOTE,
>> or even more informally, just as a document in the date space (e.g.,
>> /2002/01/foo) as just a staff/administrative thingie. Not good for
>> normative references, but it can be useful to applications...
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-02.txt
>>
>>
>
>