RE: [dss] Groups - dss-requirements-1.0-draft-02.doc uploaded

["jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

As I understand it, Rich Salz just did an XML-DSIG interop report for the W3C XML-DSIG list. Perhaps Rich can enlighten us whether he agrees with this suggested resolution. Personally, I have doubts. Either XML-DSIG works as intended with transforms, cannonicalization and signatures, or, as has been suggested, there may be problems in the implementations. If we have to worry about white spaces and line feed/carriage returns creeping back in for verifications, such that "what was seen was signed" may or may not be reconstructible and verifiable, then can we simply treat it as an XML-DSIG issue and move on?


>Anyways, I just worry that this is more a general XML-DSIG issue than a DSS 
>issue, and so we shouldn't expend too much effort trying to solve it, 
>unless we can do it very simply.
>
>> >   In addition to the fact that not all
>> > transforms will even *BE* signable
>>
>>Hunh?  How so?  Are you saying the stylesheet is private?
>>         /r$
>
>A transform (according to XML-DSIG 4.3.3.4) could be just about any 
>algorithm, it doesn't have to be XSLT.  The approach I suggested would work 
>with any transform, not just those that are representable in XML like XSLT.
>
>Trevor 
>
>