• To: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>
• Subject: Re: Canonicalization software
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:18:17 -0500
• Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <a0602040dbc4413758d96@[10.10.11.4]>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0402020007490.31828-100000@s...> <p06010200bc43dac26600@[192.168.254.4]> <a0602040cbc43ef0803be@[10.10.11.4]> <p06010205bc4405766e74@[192.168.254.4]> <a0602040dbc4413758d96@[10.10.11.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

> That makes sense, and is nice and simple. I had imagined these tools 
> were more advanced! I guess this means not many people are using 
> canonicalizers commercially.

No, it means that not many people have Elliotte's direct need.

Anytime someone does XML DSIG, they are using canonicalization, but most 
often they are fed right into a SHA-1 processor, and not output directly.

	/r$

-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• References:
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Canonicalization software
    • From: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Canonicalization software
• Next by Date: XOM 1.0d23 Last Call
• Previous by thread: Re: Canonicalization software
• Next by thread: Re: Canonicalization software
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread