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

["Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@cio.gv.at>]

All,
      

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:37 PM
> To: Rich Salz; Trevor Perrin
> Cc: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dss] Groups - dss-requirements-1.0-draft-02.doc uploaded
> 
> 
> 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?

I *stronly* agree with John; if XMLDSIG transforms produce different
results in different implementations, this is an XMLDSIG interop
problem.

/Gregor

> 
> 
> >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
> >
> >
>

smime.p7s