Exclusive XML Canonicalization, Version 1.0
RFC 3741
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (March 2004; Errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Joseph Reagle , Donald Eastlake , John Boyer | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 3741 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Russ Housley | ||
| IESG note | The revised draft includes the changes requested by Randy Bush. It is back on the agenda to confirm that there are no further concerns. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group J. Boyer
Request for Comments: 3741 PureEdge Solutions
Category: Informational D. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
J. Reagle
W3C
March 2004
Exclusive XML Canonicalization, Version 1.0
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Canonical XML specifies a standard serialization of XML that, when
applied to a subdocument, includes the subdocument's ancestor context
including all of the namespace declarations and attributes in the
"xml:" namespace. However, some applications require a method which,
to the extent practical, excludes ancestor context from a
canonicalized subdocument. For example, one might require a digital
signature over an XML payload (subdocument) in an XML message that
will not break when that subdocument is removed from its original
message and/or inserted into a different context. This requirement
is satisfied by Exclusive XML Canonicalization.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The Need for Exclusive XML Canonicalization. . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. A Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. General Problems with re-Enveloping. . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Specification of Exclusive XML Canonicalization. . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Constrained Implementation (non-normative) . . . . . . . 9
4. Use in XML Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Target Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
5.2. 'Esoteric' Node-sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements (Informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The XML Recommendation [XML] specifies the syntax of a class of
objects called XML documents. The Namespaces in XML Recommendation
[XML-NS] specifies additional syntax and semantics for XML documents.
It is normal for XML documents and subdocuments which are equivalent
for the purposes of many applications to differ in their physical
representation. For example, they may differ in their entity
structure, attribute ordering, and character encoding. The goal of
this specification is to establish a method for serializing the XPath
node-set representation of an XML document or subset such that:
1. The node-set is minimally affected by any XML context which has
been omitted.
2. The canonicalization of a node-set representing well-balanced
XML [XML-Fragment] will be unaltered by further applications of
exclusive canonicalization.
3. It can be determined whether two node-sets are identical except
for transformations considered insignificant by this
specification under [XML, XML-NS].
An understanding of the Canonical XML Recommendation [XML-C14N] is
required.
The World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation corresponding to this
RFC is at: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n. Errata are located at
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/xml-exc-c14n-errata.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [Keywords].
The XPath 1.0 Recommendation [XPath] defines the term node-set and
specifies a data model for representing an input XML document as a
set of nodes of various types (element, attribute, namespace, text,
comment, processing instruction, and root). The nodes are included
in or excluded from a node-set based on the evaluation of an
expression. Within this specification and [XML-C14N], a node-set is
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
used to directly indicate whether or not each node should be rendered
in the canonical form (in this sense, it is used as a formal
mathematical set). A node that is excluded from the set is not
rendered in the canonical form being generated, even if its parent
node is included in the node-set. However, an omitted node may still
impact the rendering of its descendants (e.g., by affecting the
namespace context of the descendants).
A document subset is a portion of an XML document indicated by an
XPath node-set that may not include all of the nodes in the document.
As defined in [XPath] every node (e.g., element, attribute, and
namespace), has exactly one parent, which is either an element node
or the root node. An apex node is an element node in a document
subset having no element node ancestor in the document subset. An
orphan node is an element node whose parent element node is not in
the document subset. The output parent of an orphan node that is not
an apex node is the nearest ancestor element of the orphan node that
is in the document subset; an apex node has no output parent. The
output parent of a non-orphan node is the parent of the node. An
output ancestor is any ancestor element node in the document subset.
For example given a document tree with three generations under the
root node A and where capitalization denotes the node is in the
document subset (A,E,G).
Pictorial Representation:
[diagram of nodes,
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/exc-c14n.png]
Textual Representation:
A-+-b
`-c-+-d
`-E-+-f
`-G
The following characteristics apply:
* A is an apex node, output parent of E, and output ancestor of
(E,G);
* E is an orphan node and the output parent of G.
An element E in a document subset visibly utilizes a namespace
declaration, i.e., a namespace prefix P and bound value V, if E or an
attribute node in the document subset with parent E has a qualified
name in which P is the namespace prefix. A similar definition
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
applies for an element E in a document subset that visibly utilizes
the default namespace declaration, which occurs if E has no namespace
prefix.
The namespace axis of an element contains nodes for all non-default
namespace declarations made within the element as well as non-default
namespace declarations inherited from ancestors of the element. The
namespace axis also contains a node representing the default
namespace if it is not the empty string, whether the default
namespace was declared within the element or by an ancestor of the
element. Any subset of the nodes in a namespace axis can be included
in a document subset.
The method of canonicalization described in this specification
receives an InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList parameter, which lists
namespace prefixes that are handled in the manner described by the
Canonical XML Recommendation [XML-C14N].
The exclusive canonical form of a document subset is a physical
representation of the XPath node-set, as an octet sequence, produced
by the method described in this specification. It is as defined in
the Canonical XML Recommendation [XML-C14N] except for the changes
summarized as follows:
* attributes in the XML namespace, such as xml:lang and xml:space
are not imported into orphan nodes of the document subset, and
* namespace nodes that are not on the InclusiveNamespaces
PrefixList are expressed only in start tags where they are
visible and if they are not in effect from an output ancestor
of that tag.
The term exclusive canonical XML refers to XML that is in exclusive
canonical form. The exclusive XML canonicalization method is the
algorithm defined by this specification that generates the exclusive
canonical form of a given XML document subset. The term exclusive
XML canonicalization refers to the process of applying the exclusive
XML canonicalization method to an XML document subset.
1.2. Applications
The applications of Exclusive XML Canonicalization are very similar
to those for Canonical XML [XML-C14N]. However, exclusive
canonicalization, or equivalent means of excluding most XML context,
is necessary for signature applications where the XML context of
signed XML will change. This sort of change is typical of many
protocol applications.
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
Note that in the case of the SignedInfo element of [XML-DSig], the
specification of an appropriate canonicalization method is the only
technique available to protect the signature from insignificant
changes in physical form and changes in XML context.
1.3. Limitations
Exclusive XML Canonicalization has the limitations of Canonical XML
[XML-C14N] plus two additional limitations as follows:
1. The XML being canonicalized may depend on the effect of XML
namespace attributes, such as xml:lang, xml:space, and xml:base
appearing in ancestor nodes. To avoid problems due to the
non-importation of such attributes into an enveloped document
subset, either they MUST be explicitly given in a node of the
XML document subset being canonicalized where their effect is
needed or which is an ancestor of the node where their effect
is needed or they MUST always be declared with an equivalent
value in every context in which the XML document subset will be
interpreted.
2. Applications that use the XML being canonicalized may depend on
the effect of XML namespace declarations where the namespace
prefix being bound is not visibly utilized. An example would
be an attribute whose value is an XPath expression and whose
evaluation therefore depends upon namespace prefixes referenced
in the expression. Or, an attribute value might be considered
a QName [XML-NS] by some applications, but it is only a
string-value to XPath:
<number xsi:type="xsd:decimal">10.09</number>.
To avoid problems with such namespace declarations,
o the XML MUST be modified so that use of the namespace prefix
involved is visible, or
o the namespace declarations MUST appear and be bound to the same
values in every context in which the XML will be interpreted,
or
o the prefixes for such namespaces MUST appear in the
InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList.
2. The Need for Exclusive XML Canonicalization
In some cases, particularly for signed XML in protocol applications,
there is a need to canonicalize a subdocument in such a way that it
is substantially independent of its XML context. This is because, in
protocol applications, it is common to envelope XML in various layers
of message or transport elements, to strip off such enveloping, and
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
to construct new protocol messages, parts of which were extracted
from different messages previously received. If the pieces of XML in
question are signed, they need to be canonicalized in a way such that
these operations do not break the signature but the signature still
provides as much security as can be practically obtained.
2.1. A Simple Example
As a simple example of the type of problem that changes in XML
context can cause for signatures, consider the following document:
<n1:elem1 xmlns:n1="http://b.example">
content
</n1:elem1>
this is then enveloped in another document:
<n0:pdu xmlns:n0="http://a.example">
<n1:elem1 xmlns:n1="http://b.example">
content
</n1:elem1>
</n0:pdu>
The first document above is in canonical form. But assume that
document is enveloped as in the second case. The subdocument with
elem1 as its apex node can be extracted from this second case with an
XPath expression such as:
(//. | //@* | //namespace::*)[ancestor-or-self::n1:elem1]
The result of applying Canonical XML to the resulting XPath node-set
is the following (except for line wrapping to fit this document):
<n1:elem1 xmlns:n0="http://a.example"
xmlns:n1="http://b.example">
content
</n1:elem1>
Note that the n0 namespace has been included by Canonical XML because
it includes namespace context. This change which would break a
signature over elem1 based on the first version.
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
2.2. General Problems with re-Enveloping
As a more complete example of the changes in canonical form that can
occur when the enveloping context of a document subset is changed,
consider the following document:
<n0:local xmlns:n0="foo:bar"
xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org">
<n1:elem2 xmlns:n1="http://example.net"
xml:lang="en">
<n3:stuff xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org"/>
</n1:elem2>
</n0:local>
And the following which has been produced by changing the enveloping
of elem2:
<n2:pdu xmlns:n1="http://example.com"
xmlns:n2="http://foo.example"
xml:lang="fr"
xml:space="retain">
<n1:elem2 xmlns:n1="http://example.net"
xml:lang="en">
<n3:stuff xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org"/>
</n1:elem2>
</n2:pdu>
Assume an XPath node-set produced from each case by applying the
following XPath expression:
(//. | //@* | //namespace::*)[ancestor-or-self::n1:elem2]
Applying Canonical XML to the node-set produced from the first
document yields the following serialization (except for line wrapping
to fit in this document):
<n1:elem2 xmlns:n0="foo:bar"
xmlns:n1="http://example.net"
xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org"
xml:lang="en">
<n3:stuff></n3:stuff>
</n1:elem2>
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
However, although elem2 is represented by the same octet sequence in
both pieces of external XML above, the Canonical XML version of elem2
from the second case would be (except for line wrapping so it will
fit into this document) as follows:
<n1:elem2 xmlns:n1="http://example.net"
xmlns:n2="http://foo.example"
xml:lang="en"
xml:space="retain">
<n3:stuff xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org"></n3:stuff>
</n1:elem2>
Note that the change in context has resulted in lots of changes in
the subdocument as serialized by the inclusive Canonical XML [XML-
C14N]. In the first example, n0 had been included from the context
and the presence of an identical n3 namespace declaration in the
context had elevated that declaration to the apex of the
canonicalized form. In the second example, n0 has gone away but n2
has appeared, n3 is no longer elevated, and an xml:space declaration
has appeared, due to changes in context. But not all context changes
have effect. In the second example, the presence at ancestor nodes
of an xml:lang and n1 prefix namespace declaration have no effect
because of existing declarations at the elem2 node.
On the other hand, using Exclusive XML Canonicalization as specified
herein, the physical form of elem2 as extracted by the XPath
expression above is (except for line wrapping so it will fit into
this document) as follows:
<n1:elem2 xmlns:n1="http://example.net"
xml:lang="en">
<n3:stuff xmlns:n3="ftp://example.org"></n3:stuff>
</n1:elem2>
in both cases.
3. Specification of Exclusive XML Canonicalization
The data model, processing, input parameters, and output data for
Exclusive XML Canonicalization are the same as for Canonical XML
[XML-C14N] with the following exceptions:
1. Canonical XML applied to a document subset requires the search
of the ancestor nodes of each orphan element node for
attributes in the XML namespace, such as xml:lang and
xml:space. These are copied into the element node except if a
declaration of the same attribute is already in the attribute
axis of the element (whether or not it is included in the
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
document subset). This search and copying are omitted from the
Exclusive XML Canonicalization method.
2. The Exclusive XML Canonicalization method may receive an
additional, possibly null, parameter InclusiveNamespaces
PrefixList containing a list of namespace prefixes and/or a
token indicating the presence of the default namespace. All
namespace nodes appearing on this list are handled as provided
in Canonical XML [XML-C14N].
3. A namespace node N with a prefix that does not appear in the
InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList is rendered if all of the
conditions are met:
1. Its parent element is in the node-set, and
2. it is visibly utilized by its parent element, and
3. the prefix has not yet been rendered by any output ancestor,
or the nearest output ancestor of its parent element that
visibly utilizes the namespace prefix does not have a
namespace node in the node-set with the same namespace
prefix and value as N.
4. If the token representing the default namespace is not present
in InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList, then the rules for rendering
xmlns="" are changed as follows. When canonicalizing the
namespace axis of an element E that is in the node-set, output
xmlns="" if and only if all of the conditions are met:
1. E visibly utilizes the default namespace (i.e., it has no
namespace prefix), and
2. it has no default namespace node in the node-set, and
3. the nearest output ancestor of E that visibly utilizes the
default namespace has a default namespace node in the node-
set. (This step for xmlns="" is necessary because it is not
represented in the XPath data model as a namespace node, but
as the absence of a namespace node; see Section 4.7
Propagation of Default Namespace Declaration in Document
Subsets [XML-C14N].)
3.1. Constrained Implementation (non-normative)
The following is a (non-normative) method for implementing the
Exclusive XML Canonicalization method for many straightforward cases
-- it assumes a well-formed subset and that if an element is in the
node-set, so is all of its namespace axis; if the element is not in
the subset, neither is its namespace axis.
1. Recursively process the entire tree (from which the XPath
node-set was selected) in document order starting with the
root. (The operation of copying ancestor xml: namespace
attributes into output apex element nodes is not done.)
2. If the node is not in the XPath subset, continue to process its
children element nodes recursively.
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
3. If the element node is in the XPath subset then output the node
in accordance with Canonical XML except for namespace nodes
which are rendered as follows:
1. ns_rendered is a copy of a dictionary, off the top of the
state stack, of prefixes and their values which have already
been rendered by an output ancestor of the namespace node's
parent element.
2. Render each namespace node if and only if all of the
conditions are met:
1. it is visibly utilized by the immediate parent element or
one of its attributes, or is present in
InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList, and
2. its prefix and value do not appear in ns_rendered.
3. Render xmlns="" if and only if all of the conditions are
met:
1. The default namespace is visibly utilized by the
immediate parent element node, or the default prefix
token is present in InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList, and
2. the element does not have a namespace node in the node-
set declaring a value for the default namespace, and
3. the default namespace prefix is present in the dictionary
ns_rendered.
4. Insert all the rendered namespace nodes (including xmlns="")
into the ns_rendered dictionary, replacing any existing
entries. Push ns_rendered onto the state stack and recurse.
5. After the recursion returns, pop the state stack.
4. Use in XML Security
Exclusive Canonicalization may be used as a Transform or
CanonicalizationMethod algorithm in XML Digital Signature [XML-DSig]
and XML Encryption [XML-Enc].
Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#WithComments
Just as with [XML-C14N] one may use the "#WithComments" parameter to
include the serialization of XML comments. This algorithm also takes
an optional explicit parameter of an empty InclusiveNamespaces
element with a PrefixList attribute. The value of this attribute is
a white space delimited list of namespace prefixes, and where
#default indicates the default namespace, to be handled as per [XML-
C14N]. The list is in NMTOKENS format (a white space separated
list). For example:
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
<ds:Transform
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#">
<ec:InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList="dsig soap #default"
xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/>
</ds:Transform>
indicates the exclusive canonicalization transform, but that
namespaces with prefix "dsig" or "soap" and default namespaces should
be processed according to [XML-C14N].
Schema Definition (expressed in [XML-schema]):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE schema
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XMLSchema 200102//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.dtd"
[
<!ATTLIST schema xmlns:ec CDATA
#FIXED 'http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#'>
<!ENTITY ec 'http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#'>
<!ENTITY % p ''>
<!ENTITY % s ''>
]>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"
targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"
version="0.1" elementFormDefault="qualified">
<element name="InclusiveNamespaces"
type="ec:InclusiveNamespaces"/>
<complexType name="InclusiveNamespaces">
<attribute name="PrefixList" type="NMTOKENS"/>
</complexType>
</schema>
DTD:
<!ELEMENT InclusiveNamespaces EMPTY >
<!ATTLIST InclusiveNamespaces
PrefixList NMTOKENS #REQUIRED >
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
5. Security Considerations
This specification is used to serialize an XPath node-set under
certain assumptions given in [XML-C14N] and this specification.
Three such examples include:
1. implementations of [XML-C14N] and this specification do not render
an XML declaration;
2. implementations of this specification only render attributes from
the "XML" namespace (e.g., xml:lang, xml:space, and xml:base) when
they are in the subset being serialized;
3. implementations of this specification do not consider the
appearance of a namespace prefix within an attribute value to be
visibly utilized.
While such choices are consistent with other XML specifications and
satisfy the Working Group's application requirements it is important
that an XML application carefully construct its transforms such that
the result is meaningful and unambiguous in its application context.
In addition to this section, the Limitations of this specification,
the Resolutions of [XML-C14N], and the Security Considerations of
[XML-DSig] should be carefully attended to.
5.1. Target Context
The requirement of this specification is to satisfy applications that
"require a method which, to the extent practical, excludes ancestor
context from a canonicalized subdocument." Given a fragment being
removed from its source instance, this specification satisfies this
requirement by excluding from the fragment any context from its
ancestors that is not utilized. Consequently, a signature [XML-DSig]
over that fragment will remain valid in its source context, removed
from the source context, and even in a new target context. However,
this specification does not insulate the fragment against confused
interpretation in a target context.
For example, if the <Foo/> element is signed in its source instance
of <Bar/><Foo/></Bar> and then removed and placed in the target
instance <Baz xmlns="http://example.org/bar"/><Foo/></Baz>, the
signature should still be valid, but won't be if <Foo/> is
interpreted as belonging to the http://example.org/bar namespace:
this is dependent on how nodes are processed.
This specification does not define mechanisms of removing, inserting,
and "fixing up" a node-set. (For an example of this sort of
specification, see the processing required of Creating the Result
Infoset (section 4.5) when an [XInclude] is performed.) Instead,
applications must carefully specify the XML (i.e., source, fragment,
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
and target) or define the node-set processing (i.e., removal,
replacement, and insertion) with respect to default namespace
declarations (e.g., xmlns="") and XML attributes (e.g., xml:lang,
xml:space, and xml:base).
5.2. 'Esoteric' Node-sets
Consider an application that might use this specification or [XML-
C14N] to serialize a single attribute node. An implementation of
either specification will not emit a namespace declaration for that
single attribute node. Consequently, a "carefully constructed"
transform should create a node-set containing the attribute and the
relevant namespace declaration for serialization.
This example is provided to caution that as one moves beyond well-
formed [XML] and then well-balanced XML [XML-Fragment], it becomes
increasingly difficult to create a result that "is meaningful and
unambiguous in its application context."
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[Keywords] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[XML] Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition).
T. Bray, E. Maler, J. Paoli, and C. M. Sperberg-
McQueen. W3C Recommendation, October 2000. Available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
[XML-C14N] Boyer, J., "Canonical XML", RFC 3076, March 2001.
Also a W3C Recommendation available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315
[XML-NS] Namespaces in XML. T. Bray, D. Hollander, and A.
Layman. W3C Recommendation, January 1999. Available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
[XML-schema] XML Schema Part 1: Structures D. Beech, M. Maloney, N.
Mendelsohn, and H. Thompson. W3C Recommendation, May
2001. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-
xmlschema-2-20010502/
[XPath] XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0. J. Clark and S.
DeRose. W3C Recommendation, November 1999. Available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
6.2. Informative References
[URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter,
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax",
RFC 2396, August 1998.
[XInclude] XML Inclusions (XInclude) Version 1.0. J. Marsh, and
D. Orchad. W3C Candidate Recommendation, February
2002. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-
xinclude-20020221/
[XML-DSig] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J. and D. Solo, "XML-Signature
Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March 2002.
Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-
core-20020212/
[XML-Enc] XML Encryption Syntax and Processing. D. Eastlake,
and J. Reagle. W3C Candidate Recommendation, March
2002. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-
xmlenc-core-20020304/
[XML-Fragment] XML Fragment Interchange. P. Grosso, and D.
Veillard. W3C Candidate Recommendation, February
2001. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xml-
fragment-20010212
7. Acknowledgements (Informative)
The following people provided valuable feedback that improved the
quality of this specification:
* Merlin Hughes, Baltimore
* Thomas Maslen, DSTC
* Paul Denning, MITRE
* Christian Geuer-Pollmann, University Siegen
* Bob Atkinson, Microsoft
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
Authors' Addresses
John Boyer
PureEdge Solutions Inc.
4396 West Saanich Rd.
Victoria, BC, Canada V8Z 3E9
Phone: +1-888-517-2675
EMail: jboyer@PureEdge.com
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
+1-508-786-7554 (w)
EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
Joseph M. Reagle Jr., W3C
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Laboratory for Computer Science
NE43-350, 545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: +1-617-258-7621
EMail: reagle@mit.edu
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3741 Exclusive XML Canonicalization March 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Boyer, et al. Informational [Page 16]