OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM


Joel,

I was specifically referring to the issue you raised regarding requiring digital signatures on payloads.

BTW the rationale for this requirement was that since registries cannot afford to verify integrity of submitted content and their source, a digital signature would at least provide a link to the source of the content.

Of course I agree that typos and the "public vs. private bug" must be fixed in 2.1. I do however disagree that a second review cycle and vote should be necessary for fixing minor typos like this. I think we can simply say we approve the specs with specific comments they want to make sure are addresses.

--
Regards,
Farrukh
 

"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

 Please see my recent response to Suresh.  On the 1st two security related issues highlighted below, I agree. However, I strongly believe that the public vs. private bug (highlighted) below, as well as the bunch of spelling and grammatical errors that I noted in my original post the other day should be fixed prior to the release of v2.1.  Even if this means another review/approval cycle. Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:45 AM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'Oasis Registry TC'
Subject: Re: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM
 
Joel,

V2.1 is intended to be a bug fix release and not for arbitrary changes to the spec. We have required digital signatures on payloads since the earliest versions of the specs. This was not objected to by anyone in V1.0 or V2.0. Making any changes here would be major and I would advice strongly against it.

--
Regards,
Farrukh
 

"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

My primary argument is, "financial and technological barriers to entry."  Certificate acquisition and management are not free and not trivial.  From a practical point, I may choose to make some things that I publish, purely public and dsig just simply is not required.  I want to be able to choose what I sign.  imho Signing entries should be optional.  It has been suggested (by others) that the first two might be reconsidered in the V3 timeframe.Joel 
-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:57 AM
To: 'Munter, Joel D'; 'Oasis Registry TC'
Cc: Mikula, Norbert H
Subject: RE: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM
Joel,Responses to your security related, "non-typo" type of comments below.Regards,-Suresh
Sterling Commerce
-----Original Message-----
From: Munter, Joel D [mailto:joel.d.munter@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:45 PM
To: 'Oasis Registry TC'
<snip>line 3696:3697: I still believe that this specification should NOT mandate digital signature for all content per the statement "The Registry Client has to sign the contents before submission - otherwise the content will be rejected."line 3733:3734: I have the same objection to mandating digital signatures on payloads per the text "This packaging assumes that the payload is always signed."
[Damodaran, Suresh] What is your rationale behind your objection?line 3876:3877: Should the second occurrence of public key in the following sentence, "To validate a signature, the recipient of the signature needs the public key corresponding to the signer's public key.," actually be private key?  If not then something else seems very awkward about this sentence.
[Damodaran, Suresh] You are right. It should be "private key." <snip>

 
 

 
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC