Status:

Held for Document Update

Type:

Technical

Reported By:

Axel Puhlmann

Date Reported:

2014-04-15

Held for Document Update by:

Roman Danyliw

Date Held for Document Update:

2022-01-19

Section 4.2 and 4.1 says:

   2006/12/xmlc12n11#                  [CANON11]  Canonicalization
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#WithComments      [CANON11]  Canonicalization

It should say:

   2006/12/xmlc12n11#   {Bad}          [CANON11]
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#                  [CANON11]

Notes:

As explained in Appendix B of draft-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris:

   [RFC6931] included two bad URIs as shown below. "{Bad}" in the
   indexes (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) indicates such a bad value.
   Implementations SHOULD only generate the correct URI but SHOULD
   understand both the correct and erroneous URI.

   2006/12/xmlc12n11#
       Appears in the indices (Section 4.1 and 4.2] of [RFC6931] when it
       should be "2006/12/xmlc14n11#" (i.e., the "12" inside "xmlc12n11"
       should have been "14"). This is [Err3965] and is corrected in
       this document.

==[ Original Text
--[ corrected text
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#                  [CANON11]  Canonicalization
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#WithComments      [CANON11]  Canonicalization

-- [notes
[CANON11] referencing to <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-c14n11-20080502/>
only talks about c14n and not c12n.

If this is not a flaw but done purposely, there should be a not about it.

I could not find the original definitions for xmlc12n11 and xmlc14n11.
They are not in the referenced document.
(And google only shows copies of this rfc.)

For stability reasons it may be better to not change/correct this, as it may be already in use.
So a note about this discrepance may be appropriate. Or a reference to the document defining those uris.