[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core.
Ed, Seems generally OK. Are we only talking about multiple signatures in enveloped / enveloping signatures? What about detached signatures? Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Shallow [mailto:ed.shallow@rogers.com] > Sent: 10 May 2004 17:48 > To: 'Nick Pope'; 'Trevor Perrin' > Cc: dss@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core. > > > Nick and Trevor, > > Nick seems to be favoring some basic rules for the core. I assume Nick, > you feel that if one goes beyond these basic rules, we ought to > relegate to > profiles. O.K. so let's define the basic rules. Rather than repeat all the > points in the "Suggestions" note, I'll only add to them. I'll > just keep this > to short point form for now. Here are some very basic rules to govern the > crafting of the outstanding semantics. There is some repetition, but feel > free to adjust as you see fit: > > - an InputDocument can contain a single signature or may contain multiple > signatures > > - use of the SignatureObject element is optional when both > signature(s) and > References are self-contained in a given InputDocument > > - if multiple signatures are present, the implementation must either: > 1) Verify all signatures, or > 2) return urn:oasis:names:tc:dss:1.0:result:NotSupported if > they cannot > perform the Verify > > - implementations are free to support the verification of multiple > signatures that may appear in a given InputDocument > > - implementations can limit their XMLDSIG verification support to one > signature at a time either using the SignaturePtr, or without it > > - the SignaturePtr element should be initialized by the caller when > verification of a "specific" signature is required > > - on a verify, SignatureObject can be omitted, in which case the caller is > responsible for initializing the InputDocuments element with the signature > and referenced content to be verified > > - in either scenario all signature References must be unambiguous and > self-contained within the InputDocument as either an enveloped or > enveloping > signature > > - callers whose signature References make use of Id tags (e.g. of type ID) > must ensure they are unambiguous through use of an included DTD > declaration > to ensure inter-operability > > Example: > > <!DOCTYPE testdoc [ > <!ATTLIST Data Id ID #IMPLIED> > ]> > > > see the rest of the "Suggestions" note for the remainder of the details > > Ed > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Pope [mailto:pope@secstan.com] > Sent: May 10, 2004 9:48 AM > To: Trevor Perrin; ed.shallow@rogers.com > Cc: dss@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core. > > Looks like we are just about there. > > I suggest if the <SignatureObject> not present the semantics that there is > an enveloped signature in the document. > > I am happy with defining some very basic rules for handling multiple > signatures in the core such as Ed suggests, rather than leaving things > undefined. > > Ed, Perhaps you can re-iterate what you suggest regarding > handling multiple > signatures. > > Nick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net] > > Sent: 10 May 2004 09:18 > > To: ed.shallow@rogers.com > > Cc: dss@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core. > > > > > > At 02:05 PM 5/7/2004 -0400, you wrote: > > >Nick, > > > > > > I agree. When you boil it right down, we're fundamentally > > talking about > > >[Optionality] on 2 elements. I can't help but think that this is > > >entirely consistent with the spirit of the "extensible" core > > >protocol. But I would like to make sure that these very specific > > >verification > > scenarios will not > > >pose a problem. So towards that end, can you (i.e. Trevor) me a > > few signed > > >documents which embody the verification concerns you have ? > > > > I'm concerned about protocol complexity, not any particular type of > > signature. > > > > Anyways, I think there's consensus on the 1st of our 3 issues: > > - enveloping CMS should be explicitly supported > > - enveloping XML-DSIG " " " " > > > > As for the other issues, it seems there's consensus that we should > > allow <SignatureObject> to be absent, but I'm not sure there's > > agreement on the semantics. I thought Nick was arguing they would be > > undefined, and Ed was arguing the server would verify all signatures > > that were present. > > > > If we can decide on that, I'll write something up. > > > > Trevor > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > > of the OASIS TC), go to > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_wor > > kgroup.php. > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the > roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_wor kgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]