Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-09

[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.3.1 uses "FF*" without explaining the meaning of the *.  This is especially confusing because the text also says that FF is a "fixed octet" -- note the singular.

[Ballot discuss]
2.1.1 says:

The MD5 algorithm [RFC 1321] takes no explicit parameters. An example
  of an MD5 DigestAlgorithm element is:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#md5"/>

I believe the following is correct:



Section 2.4 states:

2.2 SignatureMethod Message Authentication Code Algorithms

  Note: Some text in this section is duplicated from [RFC 3275] for the
  convenience of the reader.

Please state which is normative in case of conflict.

Is it significant that 2.2.3 has no example of use?

In 2.5.1, the draft uses the following namespace: xmlns(bar=urn:baz).
This is not a valid URN NID.  Is there a reason why a URN is needed
in this namespace example?  If so, please work with IANA and the
URN-NID list to establish an appropriate example.

The document's use of NOT RECOMMENDED appears to
come from RFC 2119, which is not cited.  If this is not the
intended source, a definition or citation to the correct source
is required.

[Ballot discuss]
2.1.1 says:

The MD5 algorithm [RFC 1321] takes no explicit parameters. An example
  of an MD5 DigestAlgorithm element is:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#md5"/>

I believe the following is correct:



Section 2.4 states:

2.2 SignatureMethod Message Authentication Code Algorithms

  Note: Some text in this section is duplicated from [RFC 3275] for the
  convenience of the reader.

Please state which is normative in case of conflict.

Is it significant that 2.2.3 has no example of use?

In 2.5.1, the draft uses the following namespace: xmlns(bar=urn:baz).
This is not a valid URN NID.  Is there a reason why a URI is needed
in this namespace example?  If so, please work with IANA and the
URN-NID list to establish an appropriate example.

The document's use of NOT RECOMMENDED appears to
come from RFC 2119, which is not cited.  If this is not the
intended source, a definition or citation to the correct source
is required.

[Ballot comment]
The "Comments should be sent to the author and the XML Digital Signature mailing list " sentence in the front boilerplate isn't standard and should be removed.