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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bdxr message

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

Subject: Re: [bdxr-comment] Comments to SMP spec

Thank you very much Juan Carlos for your input. I am sharing your observations with the BDXR TC for further analysis and comments.

Best regards,


On 6/2/16, 9:12 AM, "bdxr-comment@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Juan Carlos Cruellas" <bdxr-comment@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of cruellas@ac.upc.edu> wrote:

>Dear all,
>I would like to make two comments to the SMP draft specification.
>1. The SMP draft specification. specifies that the <ds:X509Certificate> 
>element MUST contain "the signer’s X.509 certificate as PEM base 64 
>encoded X509 DER value".
>I am not sure about the implications of the "PEM base 64". I do not know 
>if this means that the content of the element is exactly the same as the 
>content specified in the XML Signature W3C Recommendation (which is a 
>normative reference of the SMP document, and which is the one that has 
>defined, in its syntax and semantics the <ds:X509Certificate>) or not. 
>In the end the text in that specification is: "The X509Certificate 
>element, which contains a base64-encoded [X509V3] certificate", without 
>the "PEM" before, and I am not sure of the implications of this word in 
>terms of contents.
>I have certainly seen the files containing the base 64 encoded X509 
>certificates with the first line indicating the start of the certificate 
>and the last one indicating the end of the certificate, but I am not 
>sure if this is what the document actually means, as there is not an 
>specific reference next to the text.
>In your view, would the "PEM base 64" lead to a different content than 
>the "base 64" within the <ds:X509Certificate>?. If not, may I suggest to 
>remove the "PEM" so that this does not generate doubts between readers?
>If you think that this is going to lead to different contents, I would 
>like to make the following remark: as I said the <ds:X509Certificate> is 
>an element defined and specified by XML Sig 1.1, which is a normative 
>reference for the SMP document. This document defines both, its syntax 
>and semantics. At this document no mention is done to "PEM base 64". 
>Actually, looking to the test suite generated by the XML Signature group 
>that produced the first version of the specification, the contents of 
>any <ds:X509Certificate> were plain base 64 encoding. IF the SMP 
>specifies a different content for the <ds:X509Certificate>, I would say 
>that this means a change in its specification, which could raise  
>interoperability problems in many applications that generate and manage 
>regular base 64 encodings. A number of interoperability tests on XAdES 
>signatures, which build on XML Signatures, have been conducted during 
>the last years and all the implementations (which would logically 
>include XML signatures implementations) generate the regular content as 
>it is generally understood from the reading of XML Sig specifications, 
>and as far as I remember nobody rose in those interoperability events 
>(which accumulate a high number of participants from all over the world 
>-including European, American, and Asian participants) the suggestion of 
>using a different content. Consequently I would like to kindly request 
>that if the "PEM base 64" would lead to different contents, the 
>committee reviews this decission and drops from the text the "PEM".
>2.  The European Union Member States National Standardisation 
>Organisations have recently approved the XAdES specification published 
>by ETSI as ETSI EN 319 132: "XAdES digital signatures" as an European 
>Standard. XAdES is also being adopted as a proper signature format for 
>OASIS ODF, and other relevant document formats, as OOXML. In fact, ISO 
>is also incorporating XAdES as a signature format in a number of 
>specifications: ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34/WG4 "Document description and 
>processing languages" is now incorporating XAdES as a way of signing the 
>OOXML documents whose format is standardizing. Other committees from ISO 
>are also specifying XAdES profiles, as ISO TC 154 "Processes, data 
>elements and documents in commerce, industry and administration". I 
>would like to kindly request that ETSI EN 319 132 is included as an 
>informative reference within the SMP specification
>Best regards
>Juan Carlos Cruellas.
>This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
>OASIS Business Document Exchange (BDXR) TC
>In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
>to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
>before posting.
>Subscribe: bdxr-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>Unsubscribe: bdxr-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>List help: bdxr-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr-comment/
>Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
>List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/bdxr
>Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
>Thank you for offering to provide input to the
>OASIS Business Document Exchange (BDXR) TC.

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