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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-tsc message

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

Subject: RE: [ubl-tsc] [Fwd: [ubl-psc] Proposal for a signature refenrence]

Hi Peter,

Pls see my response below.





-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Larsen Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:40 PM
To: Kama, Kamarudin Bin Tambi; ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Grace Ng, Swee Lee (T&L); Jern Kuan, Leong; Fu Wang, Thio
Subject: SV: [ubl-tsc] [Fwd: [ubl-psc] Proposal for a signature refenrence]


Hi Kama


Do I understand you correctly when that ebXML supports a solution where the xml-document and the signature are in the same envelope, but in different payloads?

            Kama>> Think you’ve misunderstood. COML is not a messaging protocol but a business document. What we mentioned is that in our solution, the COML approach is independent of the messaging layer. The digsig is embedded inside the COML document and is used by the application for multi-signer approval workflows. In ebXML case, the digsig done in the soap header is only used for the transport layer.


What I suggest is that the xml-document becomes able to refer to the signature, not only as a URL but also as a Mime reference.

            Kama>> OK, noted.


The problem with embeddign the siganture in the xml-document is

1) it becomes invalid if it is transformed to an other document.

            Kama>> How does this differ from your proposed approach? Whenever any XML document is being transformed, the digsig is no longer valid.


2) A digital signature on a xml document is not valid in legal terms. Only a transformation of a xml-document can be brought into a court room.

            Kama>> Think lets not get into the legal aspect of it. Each country will have its own Electronic Transaction Act. Interpretation might differ from country to country.


3) A digital signature with the purpose of ensuring that no one has tampered with the document has nothing to do in a procurement document. This is a matter for the transportation layer.

            Kama>> This depends on whether the entire procurement process requires the document to be signed or not.


What is needed at the business level is infomation about whether someone actual has aproved the document. On the other hand, to reference the signature gives you problem with consistency and persistency. This can be solved by adding two more fields in document reference: GaranteeStoragePeriode and Hashcode (perhaps hashmethod as well).

Kama>> So, there’s a problem with detached signature?


I would like to here more about your requirements.


Kind regards


Peter L. Borresen

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Kama, Kamarudin Bin Tambi [mailto:kama@crimsonlogic.com]
Sendt: 29. september 2005 09:02
Til: ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; Peter Larsen Borresen
Cc: Grace Ng, Swee Lee (T&L); Jern Kuan, Leong; Fu Wang, Thio
Emne: RE: [ubl-tsc] [Fwd: [ubl-psc] Proposal for a signature refenrence]

Hi Peter, Tim,

Sorry for the late response. We have reviewed the proposal for signature reference. Below is our comment:-


1.      The signature reference calls for the usage of detached signature. This would be useful in scenario where binary data is involved and where the referenced signature is always available and accessible via the specified URL

2.      Both ebXML messaging service and COML however uses the enveloped approach, wherein the digital signature (digsig) is embedded inside the message itself. In the case of COML, XPath is being used to reference the appropriate section of the payload that needs the digsig. This is a preferred approach where we need to perform online verification of digsig. Hence, there will not be a need to make reference to an external resource, which may not be available at the time when the digsig verification is being performed. This reduces the possibility of digsig failure.


We would urge that you study the COML approach in handling digsig for XML payload.







-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:06 PM
To: ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-tsc] [Fwd: [ubl-psc] Proposal for a signature refenrence]


forwarded from Peter Borresen. 

this is a sample isnatcen of his propsoed digital signature approach.  can we get some technical feedback on the suitability of this for our needs.

-------- Original Message --------


[ubl-psc] Proposal for a signature refenrence


Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:11:49 +0200


Peter Larsen Borresen <plb@itst.dk>


ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org, "'ytlee@cecid.hku.hk'" <ytlee@cecid.hku.hk>


'jon.bosak@sun.com' <jon.bosak@sun.com>


Hallo Thomas and Procurement subcommitee
Please find my proposal for a signature reference in the  xml-spy screen
dump and xml example file.
Best regards
Peter L. Borresen
 <<SignatureReference.gif>>  <<UBL-Order-1.0-Office-Example_with


tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services

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