Hi Marcos,
These are my further comments to the DigSig spec:
1. There is no section about typographic conventions, as e.g. section 1.3 in
PC spec. Therefore it is not possible to know e.g. which part of the spec is
defining an example.
2. Section 4. My below comment 5. Section 4, item 3: is
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
Hi Frederick,
Thanks for your review of my comments.
Ordering of widget signature files by the numeric portion of the file
name can be used to allow consistent processing and possible
optimization.
I think we should keep a sentence since Mark Priestly had earlier
asked that we add it.
Agreed.
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
re author, would the term creator in the sentence from Thomas help,
e.g.
The author signature asserts that the signing party is a creator of
the widget, and binds the creator's identity to the widget package.
this probably doesn't help, since by definition author means creator...
Hi Frederick,
Thanks for your review again.
Thanks for all the corrections.
These are my further comments for dispute.
b) Clarify file name in PC (the definition in DigSig says about
deriving from file name field and it seems strange to me).
why? it is the string file name?
PC defines (or
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,
this probably
Hi,
Where can we find: a) a short description of the otsi-arch-sec mail
list (e.g. its function); b) who is subscribed to this list and c)
its Public archive?
Also, is this mail list writable by anyone that has not agreed to the
Turin Rules [1]?
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]
Hi,
Where can we find: a) a short description of the otsi-arch-sec mail
list (e.g. its function); b) who is subscribed to this list and c)
its Public archive?
Also, is this mail list writable by anyone that has not agreed to the
Turin Rules [1]?
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]
Dear Marcos,
I hope to have less critical comments than in my last feedback email.
1. Section 7.1: change The ds:SignatureMethod algorithm used in the
ds:SignatureValue element MUST one of the signature algorithms. to The
ds:SignatureMethod algorithm used in the ds:SignatureValue element MUST
Hi Frederick,
I support the changes below. They are all editorial in nature.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Hillebrand, Rainer
rainer.hillebr...@t-mobile.net wrote:
Dear Marcos,
I hope to have less critical comments than in my last feedback email.
1. Section 7.1:
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 algorithm used
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
I have completed a major round of editorial updates to the Widget
Signature editors draft.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
This is intended to be our public working draft for Monday, so please
review the changes. Thanks to all who commented. This does not include
changes for
14 matches
Mail list logo
