<li>ECMA profile: We will like take care of this one
at Novell.
- <li>Assembly signing: I do not know what is the state
- of this feature currently in Mono, maybe Sebastien and
- Zoltan could give us an update here.
+ <li>Assembly signing: There are two ways to sign
+ assemblies.<br>
+
+ <b>StrongNames</b> - It is possible to sign
+ and verify strongname signatures using the
+ sn.exe security tool. This same tool can also
+ create the required key pairs to sign the
+ assemblies. What we are lacking:
+ <ul>
+ <li>The runtime doesn't check
+ strongname signatures (if present)
+ when loading an assembly outside the
+ GAC;
+ <li>sn.exe cannot be used to sign,
+ nor verify, an assembly that contains
+ the "ECMA public key";
+ <li>sn.exe doesn't support all options
+ to turn on/off runtime verification
+ for some assemblies;
+ <li>StrongNameIdentityPermission
+ support isn't complete as it depends
+ on CAS.
+ </ul>
+
+ <b>Authenticode</b> - It is possible today
+ to sign assemblies (in fact any PE file) with
+ an Authenticode(r) compatible signature (with
+ or without a timestamp) using the security
+ tools cert2spc.exe and signcode.exe. We also
+ have support to test this using the tools
+ makecert.exe, chktrust.exe and setreg.exe.
+ What we are lacking:
+ <ul>
+ <li>Currently our X.509 certificate
+ chaining is very limited and we do
+ not support certificate revocation
+ in anyway;
+ <li>Not every options are implemented
+ in all tools (and some do not really
+ apply to Mono);
+ <li>PublisherIdentityPermission
+ support isn't complete as it depends
+ on CAS.
+ </ul>
<li>ASP.NET caching: Non-existant at this point, this
needs to be implemented.
areas missing.
</ul>
- <p>The team at Novell can probably take care of most of these
- things (help is always welcomed, of course), letting folks in
- the open source world working on the more fun components.
+ <p>The team at Novell will focus on these areas. We of course
+ welcomes the contribution of the rest of the Mono team and
+ encourage the developers to focus on 1.0, to have a solid
+ release, and a solid foundation that can lead to 1.2
+
+ <p>We will use Bugzilla milestones to track these issues.
+
+<h3>Synchronized releases</h3>
+
+ <p>It would be great if we can ship Mono 1.0 with Gtk# 1.0 and
+ a preview of Monodoc with the early documentation.
<h3>Alpha components.</h3>
<h3>Avalon plans</h3>
- <p>On the surface Avalaon seems like it uses something like
+ <p>On the surface Avalon seems like it uses something like
GdiPlus/Cairo for rendering. That was my initial feeling, but
it turns out that they had to rewrite everything to have a
performing rendering engine, and implement some very advanced
<h3>Indigo Plans</h3>
<p>Indigo is still an early product (<a
- href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/pillars/Indigo/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/indigofaq1.asp">FAQ</a>,
+ href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/pillars/Indigo/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/indigofaq1.asp">FAQ</a>),
but it could benefit from continued development of our WSE1
and WSE2 components, later to bring some of the code to it.