• To: Paul Sumner Downey <Paul.Downey@w...>
• Subject: RE: Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:27:47 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <AKEALCBHGNKMENPPPGFFAEKACNAA.Paul.Downey@w...>

> Heh, and given canonicalisation is one of the simplest components of
> encrypting and signing XML, when can we expect to have *interoperable* WSS
> (WS-Security) implementations ?

I disagree with the premise.  Having done a couple of DSIG and XENC
implementations, the C14N part is usually among the hardest.
	/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: Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
    • From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@w...>

• Prev by Date: [ANNOUNCE] XML Interoperbility Guidelines - Comments/bug reports solicited
• Next by Date: RE: Citations (WAS RE: W3C suckered by Micros oft?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Rich & Elliotte were right, I was wrong
• Next by thread: Impact of the usage of unique identifier as URN into XML documents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread