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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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

Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-3028) Update digitalsignatures for better XaDeS support

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3028?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=23085#action_23085 ] 

Dennis Hamilton commented on OFFICE-3028:


I'm not quite sure how we wondered off into this particular quicksand when all we want to affirm is that same document references that have only a "#" and fragment part behave as expected and that relative IRI References are resolved by the means specified in Part 3 when the <ds:Reference> Type attribute value is "<the agreed ODF-type URI>". 

  -  -  -  -  -  -

I don't read that XSD 1.1 3.3.18 definition the way you do.  An IRI is certainly acceptable as an anyURI value in the proposed XSD 1.1 as well as in the existing [xmlenc-2] W3C Recommendation.  But the only definition of an IRI is [RFC3987].   The statement that "anyURI represents an Internationalized Resource Identifier Reference (IRI)"  does not assure that anyURI carries only [RFC3987] IRI Reference values.  Based on the specific definition that is provided later in the same documents, there are allowed anyURI values that are not  limited to being IRIs.  If anyURI were so limited, Michael and I would be done with our debate over the need for an anyIRI notation in the ODF specification.

I still don't know what "1.0 version" you are referring to.  If you mean [xmlenc-2], the definition of what an anyURI is does not agree with the specification for IRI, although IRIs are acceptable as anyURIs.   I have given examples of anyURIs that are not IRIs in a comment on OFFICE-3340: 

Finally, I think I am confused by how you are using "canonicalization."  There is XML Canonicalization, which is important for XML DSig, and there is mapping of those IRIs that are not URIs to URIs.  Mapping IRIs to URIs is an idempotent operation and could also be called a canonicalization, although I have not seen that term applied to that mapping.  However, mapping of IRIs to URIs should never be done in the XML document, which should carry whatever the producer puts in an anyURI-type attribute value.  While a producer might confine what it supplies to being URIs only, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with XML DSig or XML Canonicalization. Are we on the same page about that?

One reason for doing the IRI to URI mapping, which can always be run in a resolution process, since if there is already a URI, the mapping leaves it unchanged) is so that the URI can be compared with other URIs and so that unambigous resolution to a unique resource can be accomplished.   I have no doubt that there are implementations and resolvers that don't do that well.  It seems to me that the IRI specification demonstrates a way of doing so with complete accuracy nevertheless.

> Update digital signatures for better XaDeS support
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: OFFICE-3028
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3028
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Part 1 (Schema), Part 3 (Packages), Public Review, Security
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
>            Reporter: Cherie Ekholm 
>            Assignee: David LeBlanc
>             Fix For: ODF-Next
> David LeBlanc's proposal for updating digital signature support:
> A summary of the changes:
> Part 1, section 3.16:
> Modified to read:
> An OpenDocument document that is stored in a package may have one or more digital signatures applied to the package.
> Document signatures shall be stored in a file called META-INF/documentsignatures.xml in the package as described in section 2.4 of the OpenDocument specification part 3.
> A document signature shall be considered to be valid only if the "XML Digital Signature" contained in documentsignatures.xml is valid.
> Document signatures shall contain a <ds:Reference> element for each file within the package, with the exception that a <ds:Reference> element for the file containing the signature is omitted. If non-standard files are added to the package, then it is implementation-specific whether <ds:Reference> elements for the additional files shall be required. An implementer may also choose to support a partial document signature which may contain <ds:Reference> elements for only some of the files within the package or portions of files.
> Part 3:
> Addition of xades to the namespace table
> Packages, Digital Signatures section:
> Added "A full document signature shall be stored in a file called META-INF/documentsignatures.xml, as described in part 1, section 3.16." to be consistent with part 1.
> <dsig:document-signatures> section:
> Changed:
> In particular, consumers may require that a digital signature references all files contained in a package.
> To:
> In particular, consumers may require that a digital signature references all files contained in a package, excepting the META-INF/documentsignatures.xml file, which cannot be included because a signature cannot sign itself.
> I didn't touch the next 2 paragraphs, but these are a problem due to the encryption conundrum.
> <ds:Signature> section:
> This is long, and I'll wait for Cherie here. Basically, it puts into standards language the what I suggested in e-mail previously, and specifies the current signature implementation of (IIRC) Open Office as the standard, and adds in the information needed to do XAdES such that everyone can interoperate.
> Copied from David's editted document, the section would read:
> The <ds:Signature> element is defined by the [xmldsig-core] specification. A producer may use the XAdES extensions as specified in ETSI TS 101 903 v1.3.2 [XAdES], or later versions of the XAdES specification. Each <ds:Signature> element shall contain an Id attribute specifying a unique value.
> A <ds:KeyInfo> element, as specified in [xmldsig-core], section 4.4 shall be included. The <ds:KeyInfo> element shall contain an <ds:X509Data> element containing at least an <ds:X509IssuerSerial> element specifying the issuer and serial number of the signing certificate, and an <ds:X509Certificate> element specifying the full signing certificate. Additional <ds:X509Certificate> elements may be placed in the <ds:X509Data>, or may be placed in the <xades:CertificateValues> element of the XAdES <ds:Object>, as defined in [XAdES] section 7.6.1. The additional certificates should represent the entire primary certificate chain used at signing time.
> <ds:Reference> elements contained within a <ds:SignedInfo> element shall be resolved according to the following specification:
> 1.	A <ds:Reference> element which refers to a file contained within the package shall have a Type attribute with a value of "http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1.html";. The <ds:Reference> URI for files contained within the package shall be Relative IRI references contained within the element or any of its descendant elements shall be resolved as defined in section 3.7, except that the base URI for resolving relative IRIs shall be the package base IRI.
> 2.	A <ds:Reference> to an <ds:Object> element contained within this <ds:Signature> element shall have a Type attribute with a value of "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#Object";. The <ds:Reference> URI for an <ds:Object> element shall be considered to be relative to the <ds:Signature> element.
> 3.	A <ds:Reference> element which refers to the XAdES SignedProperties element (if present) shall be as specified in [XAdES] section 6.3.1.
> 4.	A <ds:Reference> element with a Type attribute value other than those specified previously should be considered to be external to the package.
> Any <ds:Reference> elements contained within a <ds:Manifest> element, which is in turn contained within a <ds:Object> element, shall be considered to be implementation specific.
> The only permitted <ds:Transform> elements which apply to files contained within the archive shall be canonicalization transforms, as specified in [xmldsig-core], section 6.5.
> The signing time shall be recorded using one or more of the following approaches:
> 1.	An <ds:Object > element containing a <ds:SignatureProperty> element with:
> a.	An Id attribute with a value containing a unique identifier.
> b.	A Target attribute corresponding to the Id attribute of the <ds:Signature> element.
> c.	A <date> element from the namespace "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"; containing the time in UTC format.
> 2.	A <xades:SigningTime> element as specified in [XAdES] section 7.2.1.
> If an <ds:Object> containing XAdES elements is present, then a document compliant with this specification uses the following options:
> 1.	The <xades:SignedSignatureProperties> element shall contain a <xades:SigningCertificate> property as specified in [XAdES] section 7.2.2.
> 2.	A <xades:SigningTime> element shall be present as specified in [XAdES] section 7.2.1.
> 3.	) If any timestamp elements of type XAdESTimeStampType are present, such as the <xades:SignatureTimeStamp> or <xades: SigAndRefsTimestamp> elements, the time stamp information shall be specified as an EncapsulatedTimeStamp element containing DER encoded ASN.1. data.
> 4.	) If references to validation data are present, the <xades:SigAndRefsTimestamp> element as specified in [XAdES] sections 7.5.1 and shall be used.
> 5.	There shall be a <ds:Reference> element specifying the digest of the SignedProperties element, as specified in [XAdES], section 6.2.1. This <ds:Reference> element shall be contained within the <ds:SignedInfo> element of the <ds:Signature> element.
> Oh - as I was reviewing this, I noticed that I forgot to add language to support the XAdES CounterSignature element, which itself contains one or more Signatures, each of which may also have a CounterSignature. We need to make sure that restrictions on the <ds:Signature> element do not preclude using them differently in a CounterSignature.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


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