James M Snell wrote:
I am becoming increasingly convinced that a c14n algorithm is
the *only* way to accomplish the goal here.
The need for C14N should never have been questioned. Where there are
signatures, there *must* be C14N (Canonicalization). In the absence of
explicitly defined
Bob Wyman wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
I am becoming increasingly convinced that a c14n algorithm is
the *only* way to accomplish the goal here.
The need for C14N should never have been questioned. Where there are
signatures, there *must* be C14N (Canonicalization). In the
At 10:32 AM -0700 6/22/05, James M Snell wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
2) What you are signing is just the set of bits in the entry, or
just the set of bits in the feed, with no interpretation of them.
No pre-canonicalization is needed, and none is to be expected by
the validating party.
I
At 11:49 AM -0600 6/22/05, Antone Roundy wrote:
I take it, Paul, that you're suggesting that we punt on ensuring
that entries can be aggregated without breaking signatures.
Exactly right.
If so, we might consider suggesting some guidelines for maximizing
the probability of a signature
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:32 AM -0700 6/22/05, James M Snell wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
2) What you are signing is just the set of bits in the entry, or
just the set of bits in the feed, with no interpretation of them. No
pre-canonicalization is needed, and none is to be expected by the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 11:49 AM -0600 6/22/05, Antone Roundy wrote:
I take it, Paul, that you're suggesting that we punt on ensuring that
entries can be aggregated without breaking signatures.
Exactly right.
In the core Atom spec, absolutely.
If so, we might consider suggesting some
On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:55 AM, James M Snell wrote:
Note that I am not trying to change Atom's model or the core spec,
We do agree on Paul's suggested changed saying it's OK to sign
entries though, I think.
I am trying to define an Atom extension that is capable of meeting
a specific
On Jun 22, 2005, at 12:03 PM, James M Snell wrote:
I'm planning to write a separate Internet-Draft that discusses
digital signing of Atom feeds and entries. Some parts of that
document will includes mandates; other parts will include
recommendations. We can describe for entry producers
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jun 22, 2005, at 12:03 PM, James M Snell wrote:
I'm planning to write a separate Internet-Draft that discusses
digital signing of Atom feeds and entries. Some parts of that
document will includes mandates; other parts will include
recommendations. We can describe
