RE: [legalxml-enotary] Request to add agenda item to upcoming eNotary TC meeting

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

Agreed, although I later realized I may have (senior) momentarily
confused cryptographic validation with schema validation.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-enotary] Request to add agenda item to upcoming
> eNotary TC meeting
> From: "Mark Ladd" <mark.ladd@addison-one.com>
> Date: Fri, April 11, 2008 6:50 pm
> To: "'Arshad Noor'" <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>,
> <legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> 
> Arshad,
> 
> Thank you for your prompt response.  I was away from the office for extended
> periods today and you provided much better background information than I
> would have anyway.
> 
> I saw John's follow-up email and would encourage continuing discussion on
> the list between now and the TC conference call.  
> 
> I will be attending a conference this weekend and early next week so I will
> likely be slow to respond, but look forward to the dialogue.
> 
> 
> Mark Ladd
> Addison/One, LLC
> 262-498-0850
>  
> mark.ladd@addison-one.com
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arshad Noor [mailto:arshad.noor@strongauth.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:08 PM
> To: legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-enotary] Request to add agenda item to upcoming
> eNotary TC meeting
> 
> Being the consultant that John refers to in his e-mail, I will
> state this in my defense:
> 
> While I did, indeed, choose to use the XML Signature (DSIG)
> standard for defining the elements within the eNotary XML Schema
> Definitions (XSD), there is nothing in DSIG that states you MUST
> use asymmetric-key based digital signatures to conform to it.
> Indeed, the DSIG standard allows for other cryptographic key-
> based signatures within its schema, and that is exactly what I
> took advantage of.
> 
> The DSIG standard is a good one.  While it is traditionally
> associated with PKI/Digital Signatures (in fact, John falls
> into that same trap when he assumes that), it is not restricted
> to just asymmetric-keys.  It can be used with symmetric keys too
> (although there are security issues that must be taken into
> consideration when looking at any symmetric key-based signature
> standard).
> 
> Since DSIG can use any cryptographic key scheme, it made sense
> to use such a well-known and accepted standard for the eNotary
> specification.  And it does work.  As evidence, the sample XML
> files that are included in the zip file sent to the TC, include
> two symmetric-key based eNotary documents that conform to the
> XSD I've created and which can be validated correctly by XSD
> verifiers.
> 
> So, it is my contention that I have delivered within the spirit
> and terms of the contract, albeit a little later than planned
> due to unforeseen communication gaps and new requirements (see
> below).  I have also indicated to the subcommittee that I plan
> to complete this project well before the originally scheduled
> completion date - September/October '08 instead of December '08.
> 
> The deliverable has also gone above & beyond the original terms
> and it has accommodated two new business requirements not
> originally written into the contract:
> 
> 1) The need to allow existing XML-aware applications to notarize
>     documents by adding an element to their schema, rather than
>     by wrapping it within an OASIS defined eNotary element.  The
>     XSD I've created now allows for both, providing maximum
>     flexibility to the industry for new & legacy applications;
> 
> 2) The need to have multiple notaries notarize a single document
>     at different times and places;
> 
> It is my goal to ensure that the eNotary standard has the widest
> acceptance by creating an XSD that is meaningful to everyone.  In
> the spirit of that goal, I have already indicated to the leaders
> of the subcommittee, that I will do what is necessary to achieve
> that objective.  I will reiterate that sentiment here to the TC.
> 
> I believe, discussion around the rest of John's e-mail is up to
> the TC.
> 
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
> 
> 
> John Messing wrote:
> > 
> > Unfortunately, despite the contractual commitment the consultant changed
> > his mind and decided he did not want to proceed that way. The TC
> > leadership has not seen its way to following through on its initial
> > vision, with the result that the project implementation dates are
> > grossly overdue and a new proposal, based once again on digital
> > signature technology, which will likely perpetuate the problems noted in
> > a and b above notwithstanding the status of xml dsig as an open standard
> > in non-notary settings, has been put forth in its place.
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php