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

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

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>