Ambarish Malpani
Anli Shundi
- samples in c14n ?
- c14n: '<' must be escaped as attribute value as well
- no newlines after end-element tags in c14n ?
Barb Fox
- RE: Poll: RSA structure
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Reminder: XML Encryption Interest Group Meeting
- RE: XML Encryption strawman proposal
- RE: Errors and Questions
- RE: Errors and Questions
- RE: XML Signature Section 4.4 (KeyInfo)
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: XML Signature Section 4.4 (KeyInfo)
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
Brian LaMacchia
- RE: Detached signatures and HTTP Redirects
- Detached signatures and HTTP Redirects
- Relative namespace URIs in C14N
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: CanonicalizationMethod
- RE: X509Data element
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
by way of
Carl Ellison
Carl Wallace
Dan Connolly
- [Fwd: W3C XML Plenary Decision on relative URI References In namespace declarations]
- Re: Detached signatures and HTTP Redirects
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
David Blondeau
David.Solo@citicorp.com
Don Davis
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Teleconferences
- Re: PKCS1 in XML DSIG
- Re: Consensus on RSA signature structure
- Consensus on RSA signature structure
- No XMLDSIG teleconference today
- Re: next face to face meeting
- Re: Poll: RSA structure
- Re: X509Data with improved example
- X509Data with improved example
- Re: further revised RetrievalMethod
- Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- Re: minutes of 31 August 2000 Teleconference
- minutes of 31 August 2000 Teleconference
- August 31st Telecon Agenda
- Re: "final" RetrievalMethod
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: Draft Minutes of 24 August 2000 Teleconference
- Re: AW: new RetrievalMethod section
- Re: Canonicalization
- Agenda for Aug 24th con call
- Re: RetrievalMethod
- Re: RetrievalMethod
- RetrievalMethod
- Re: New proposed fix for here()
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: New proposed fix for here()
- Tentative Aug 17th con call Agenda
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- 2nd edition of XML 1.0 Standard
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- X509Data tweaks
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: Errors in the XML-Signature spec. examples (Namespace defaulting for attributes)
- Section 7.1 Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Errors in the XML-Signature spec. examples (Namespace defaulting for attributes)
- Teleconfereces starting August 17th
- Re: XML Processing in Current Implementations
- Final Pittsburgh Interop solicition
- Merlin Hughs example, interoperation
- Agenda for Pittsburgh IETF
- Re: XMLDSIG interop sample signature and resources
- Re: IETF Time Slot
- Re: Schema Validity and Syntax Constraints (Was: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition )
- Re: namespace question
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
Donald Eastlake
Donald Eastlake 3rd
- further revised RetrievalMethod
- 7 September Conference Call info
- "final" RetrievalMethod
- Draft Minutes of 24 August 2000 Teleconference
Doug Bunting
Ed Simon
- RE: Why isn't KeyInfo inside SignedInfo [Attn: Brian L.]
- RE: Why isn't KeyInfo inside SignedInfo [Attn: Brian L.]
- RE: XSLT
- RE: XSLT
- FW: XML Encryption strawman proposal
- RE: SHOULD / MUST see what was signed
- RE: XML Processing in Current Implementations
- RE: XSL Transform
- RE: XSL Transform
- RE: XSL Transform
- RE: XSL Transform
- RE: XSL Transform
Eric van der Vlist
- Re: Newbie comments about Canonical XML
- Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification
- Newbie comments about Canonical XML
Eve L. Maler
Greg Whitehead
Gregor Karlinger
- AW: TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- AW: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- AW: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- AW: Canonical XML comment (example 3.4)
- Canonical XML comment (example 3.4)
- AW: Canonical XML Comment (CDATA)
- Canonical XML comment (attributes in xml namespace)
- Canonical XML comment (example 3.6)
- Canonical XML Comment (CDATA)
- WG: Poll: RSA structure
- AW: XPath question
- XPath question
- AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- AW: C14n and Default namespace
- AW: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- AW: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- AW: C14n and Default namespace
- AW: Errors in Section SignatureProperties
- Errors in Section SignatureProperties
- AW: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Canonicalization
- AW: new RetrievalMethod section
- AW: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- AW: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- AW: New proposed fix for here()
- AW: Errors in the XML-Signature spec. examples (Namespace defaulting for attributes)
- Enveloped Signature Transform, XPath Transform: function here()
- Errors in the XML-Signature spec. examples (Namespace defaulting for attributes)
- AW: Errors and Questions
- AW: Errors and Questions
- AW: Errors and Questions
- AW: [w3c-ietf-xmldsig] <none>
- [w3c-ietf-xmldsig] <none>
Howard Peterman
Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
James Clark
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Wording of XPath relative namespace URI errata
- Re: C14N: Non-absolutized URIs
John Boyer
- Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- RE: Canonical XML comment (example 3.4)
- RE: Wording of XPath relative namespace URI errata
- RE: Canonical XML Comment (CDATA)
- RE: Canonical XML comment (attributes in xml namespace)
- RE: Canonical XML comment (example 3.6)
- RE: Canonical XML Comment (CDATA)
- RE: Plenary
- RE: C14N: Non-absolutized URIs
- RE: C14N: Non-absolutized URIs
- C14N: Non-absolutized URIs
- RE: comments on the XML Canonical specification
- RE: comments on the XML Canonical specification
- RE: Newbie comments about Canonical XML
- RE: Merged Copy
- RE: XPath question
- RE: xml_dsig, C14N and comments
- RE: Merged Copy
- RE: XPath question
- Final tweaks to URI #xpointer and to XPath Transform
- RE: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- RE: C14n and inherited namespaces (again) (sorry)
- c14n and normalize-space(), was RE: Insignificant whitespace
- RE: Why isn't KeyInfo inside SignedInfo [Attn: Brian L.]
- RE: Insignificant whitespace
- RE: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- RE: C14n and Default namespace
- Why isn't KeyInfo inside SignedInfo
- C14n and Default namespace
- non node-set result of XPath transform
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- Tweaked New attachment, was RE: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- here() function
- Comments omitted, was RE: Interop Issues
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- RE: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- UTF-8 and BOM
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- RE: XSLT
- XSLT
- RE: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- RE: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- New proposed fix for here(), was RE: Enveloped Signature Transform, XPath Transform: function here()
- RE: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- RE: Errors in the XML-Signature spec. examples (Namespace defaulting for attributes)
- xml:base as a PI
- RE: Omission of the XML Version in C14N
- RE: SHOULD / MUST see what was signed
- RE: Omission of the XML Version in C14N
- RE: Possible solution for XML Base problem
- Possible solution for XML Base problem
- RE: DSig comments on XML Base
- RE: DSig comments on XML Base
- RE:
- XML Base comment
- Fix for RE: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- RE: XSL Transform
- Re: section 12
- RE: [w3c-ietf-xmldsig] <none>
- RE: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- RE: namespace question
- RE: no newlines after end-element tags in c14n ?
- RE: Typos and implications in WD-xml-c14n-20000613
- c14n
- Xpath Transform
John Cowan
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: WG Last Call on C14N (and attribute value escaping)
John Messing
Jonathan Marsh
Joseph M. Reagle Jr.
- RE: TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: AW: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: AW: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Fwd: Call for Participation: XML Encryption Workshop
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- IMPORTANT: Fwd: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Latest Version of XML Signature Specification (2nd Last Call)
- Forthcoming XML Signature Last Call 2nd
- RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Implicit Parsing and Serialization in New Processing Model
- RE: Merged Copy
- Fwd: Call for Implementation: XML Base Version 1.0 Becomes a W3C Candidate Recommendation
- RE: Merged Copy
- Re: X509Data with improved example
- New Canonical XML Draft and Last Call Issues Resolution
- Merged Copy
- Re: Detached signatures and HTTP Redirects
- Re: X509Data with improved example
- Poll: RSA structure
- 000907-tele Minutes
- Re: further revised RetrievalMethod
- Re: further revised RetrievalMethod
- Re: minutes of 31 August 2000 Teleconference
- Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- FYI: XML Media Types draft-murata-xml-07.txt
- Re: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- Re: CanonicalizationMethod in draft-ietf-xmldsig-core-08.txt
- Re: Draft Minutes of 24 August 2000 Teleconference
- Re: "final" RetrievalMethod
- Re: AW: Errors in Section SignatureProperties
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: Errors in Section SignatureProperties
- Re: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- 000817 Draft Minutes
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- RE: Interop Issues
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: Section 7.1 Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Enumerated XML-Signature Conformance Requirements
- Re: SHOULD / MUST see what was signed
- IETF 48 Draft Minutes
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Updated References
- Re: Fix for RE: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- RE: XSL Transform
- Re: XML Processing in Current Implementations
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- Re: CanonicalizationMethod
- XML Processing in Current Implementations
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: How XML data objects are hashed
- Re: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: XSL Transform
- RE: XSL Transform
- Re: section 12
- Errors and Questions
- RE: XSL Transform
- Enumerated XML-Signature Conformance Requirements
- RE: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- RE: XSL Transform
- Schema Validity and Syntax Constraints (Was: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition )
- Re: CanonicalizationMethod
- Re: DTD Structures (Was: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF)
- DTD Structures (Was: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF)
- Re: CanonicalizationMethod
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: X509Data element
- Re: Section 4.3.3 (empty URI)
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- RE: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: namespace question
- Re: namespace question
- Latest XML Signature Specification
- Re: <X509Name>CN=Kent</X509Name>
- Potentially Relevant XML Signature Patent
- Re: Clarify `UTF-8'
- <X509Name>CN=Kent</X509Name>
- Re: enveloped-signature algorithm
- Canonical XML Last Call
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: X509Data element
- Re: Clarify `UTF-8'
- Re: enveloped-signature algorithm
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: samples in c14n ?
- Re: Encoding of 509 serial # and SKI
- Re: samples in c14n ?
- Re: WG Last Call on C14N (and attribute value escaping)
- RE: What's the minimum duration for last call?
- C14N Patent Declaration Request Formality
- WG Last Call on C14N (and attribute value escaping)
- WG Last Call on C14N (and attribute value escaping)
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Upcoming Schedule
- Interop at Pittsbugh IETF
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- New Namespace and Spec Status
- #implied
Juergen Brauckmann
- Re: Consensus on RSA signature structure
- xml_dsig, C14N and comments
- Re: Using DOMHASH with XML DSig
- CanonicalizationMethod in draft-ietf-xmldsig-core-08.txt
Kay Michael
Ken Goldman
- next face to face meeting
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- Re: Where would the appropriate place to identify a "Role" of a x509d ata subject?
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
Kevin Regan
- Re: thoughts on X509Data
- thoughts on X509Data
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: DSig comments on XML Base
- Re: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- Re: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- RE: namespace question
- Section 4.3.3 (empty URI)
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- X509Data element
- RE: XML Signature Section 4.4 (KeyInfo)
- RE: XML Signature Section 4.4 (KeyInfo)
- XML Signature Section 4.4 (KeyInfo)
- [w3c-ietf-xmldsig] <none>
- Re: namespace question
- Re: namespace question
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- namespace question
- Re: enveloped-signature algorithm
- enveloped-signature algorithm
Lauren Wood
- Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification
- Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification
- comments on the XML Canonical specification
Lynn Sites
Mark Bartel
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
Martin J. Duerst
- Re: TALLY and New POLL: Fwd: Proposal RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- RE: C14N: Non-absolutized URIs
- Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?
- Re: Insignificant whitespace
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: xml:base as a PI
- RE: XSLT
- Re: XSLT
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Last Call comments on Canonical XML
- I18N Last Call comments on Canonical XML
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- RE: DSig comments on XML Base
- RE: DSig comments on XML Base
- Re: XML Base comment
- RE: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- RE: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Clarify `UTF-8'
- Re: Valid XML and Schema Normative?
- Re: Going ahead with Candidate Rec
Massimo Marchiori
merlin
- Re: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Re: C14n and inherited namespaces (again) (sorry)
- Re: C14n and inherited namespaces (again) (sorry)
- C14n and inherited namespaces (again) (sorry)
- Re: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- Re: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Re: "final" RetrievalMethod
- Re: RetrievalMethod
- Re: RetrievalMethod
- Re: New proposed fix for here()
- Re: New proposed fix for here(), was RE: Enveloped Signature Transform, XPath Transform: function here()
- Re: Enveloped Signature Transform, XPath Transform: function here()
- More XMLDSIG interop sigs
- Re: XSL Transform
- Re: Fix for RE: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- Re: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
Merlin Hughes
- Re: XSL Transform
- XMLDSIG interop sample signature and resources
- XSL Transform
- XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
muraw3c@attglobal.net
Owen Roberts
- RE: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- RE: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF
- RE: Latest XML Signature Specification
Paul Grosso
Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: samples in c14n ?
Paul L. Terzulli
Petteri Stenius
- RE: Poll: Relative URIs and Strings in xmlns attributes
- Insignificant whitespace
- RE: New proposed fix for here()
Philip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Detached signatures and HTTP Redirects
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- RE: XMLDSIG RSA signatures
- IETF Time Slot
Steve Wang
Susan Lesch
TAMURA Kent
- Comments on XML-Signature S&P draft
- Comments on Canonical XML
- Re: minutes of 31 August 2000 Teleconference
- Re: Using DOMHASH with XML DSig
- Re: Using DOMHASH with XML DSig
- Re: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: New proposed fix for here()
- Re: Interop Issues
- Re: Interop Issues
- Re: New proposed fix for here()
- Re: XML Processing in Current Implementations
- Updated IBM Implementation
- RFC2553 (Re: Questions/Comments for the current draft.)
- Re: XMLDSIG proposal: enveloped signatures, xpath and here()
- Re: <X509Name>CN=Kent</X509Name>
- Re: Clarify `UTF-8'
- Transform I/O is a sequence of octets
tgindin@us.ibm.com
- Re: Comments on XML-Signature S&P draft
- Re: PKCS1 in XML DSIG
- Re: Poll: RSA structure
- Chained X.509 example
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- RE: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: Canonicalization
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: UTF-8 and BOM
- Re: thoughts on X509Data
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- Re: X509Data tweaks
- RE: X509Data tweaks
- RE: AW: Errors and Questions
- Re: AW: Errors and Questions
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.
- Re: Where would the appropriate place to identify a "Role" of a x509d ata subject?
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Followup on I18N Last Call comments and disposition
- Re: Encoding of 509 serial # and SKI
Thomas Maslen
Tim Bray
- RE: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset
- Re: Determining attribute uniqueness seems to require namespace prefix in Infoset