RE: [wss] RE: X.509 - Issues for next meeting

[Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>]

Thomas - OK.  This sounds fine.  Profile versions are indicated by different
names (wsseX509new versus wsseX509).  The initial version has no indicator
(i.e. wsseX509 not wsseX509-v1.0); subsequent versions will.  Hopefully, we
won't literally use the string "new".  We'll use "v1.1", perhaps.  Maybe the
first authors to face this issue will establish a convention.  Do we need to
preface these names with "wsse"?  Simply "X509" would be correct.  Perhaps,
it is helpful to the reader to be reminded that this is only wsse's
interpretation of X509.

What about QNames defined in the profile?  Should it be wsseX509:PKIPath or
wsse:PKIPath?  My feeling is that it is safer, whenever a type is used only
by one profile, to name in the profile namespace.  However, we should reuse
definitions from the core wherever possible.

All the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: DeMartini, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:17 PM
To: Tim Moses; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wss] RE: X.509 - Issues for next meeting


So, to be clearer, maybe we should use example URIs.

Something along these lines would be good:

... xmlns:wsseX509="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/06/secext/x509"
...
... valueType="wsseX509:X509v3" ... // refers to X509v3 by X509
profilev1
... valueType="wsseX509:X509v4" ... // refers to X509v4 by X509
profilev1

Then if we need another version of the X509 Token Profile to support
some new stuff in X509v4 but we don't break compatibility with v3, then
it'd be something like this:

... xmlns:wsseX509="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/06/secext/x509"
...
...
xmlns:wsseX509new="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/11/secext/x509"
...
... valueType="wsseX509:X509v3" ... // refers to X509v3 by X509
profilev1
... valueType="wsseX509:X509v4" ... // refers to X509v4 by X509
profilev1
... valueType="wsseX509new:X509v4" ... // refers to X509v4 by X509
profilev2

&Thomas.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:52 AM
To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; Tim Moses; wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wss] RE: X.509 - Issues for next meeting

Colleagues - As I read Phill's suggestion, it does not seem to allow for
profile versions to evolve independently of the core versions and the
versions of the token format.

How would we handle a situation in which a profile (the X509v3 profile
for
instance) needed to be reved, because of a flaw, perhaps?  I don't think
we
would want to force, or wait for, a revision of the core.  And we
certainly
don't want to wait until ITU comes out with X509v4.  So, we seem to need
a
convention for indicating the version of the profile, independent of the
version of the token format (X509v3, X509v4, etc.) and independent of
the
core version.

Then what about names defined in the profile (e.g. X509v3PKIPath)?
Should
these be subordinate in the naming tree to the profile, or to wsse?  I
don't
think we should explicitly version these.  If they are found to be in
error,
we'll just have to come up with a new name for the corrected definition.

All the best.  Tim.



-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:48 AM
To: 'Tim Moses'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: X.509 - Issues for next meeting


Tim has raised the following issues with the draft. Although I agree
with
him on one of them they are both issues that the group has discussed
before
and so there should be a decision of the group.

1. QName versioning

2. Remove either PKCS#7 or PKIPath


On 1. I think we are in agreement that there should be some form of
versioning mechanism. I believe that the discussion should consider the
following issues separately.

A - The version of the X.509 token - X509v3, X509v4 whatever
B - The version of the token profile wsse-v1 v2 - whatever

The constraints to bear in mind here are when do we want to break
backwards
compatibility? For me the only reason for changing an identifier is to
explicitly break compatibility.

I think that the case B is best delt with through the URI prefix
mechanism.

I think A is best dealt with by the QName stem, so we could have
wsse:X509v3
as a QName.


On 2. the issue here is simplicity, it is better to avoid multiplicity
of
mechanisms. PKIPath is designed to do the specific task we want. PKCS#7
is
simply a random bag of certs that promise no explicit relationship to
anything. Although we can reuse PKCS#7 for our purpose we are defining
new
semantics in the process, we also end up with an unnecessary signature
blob
on the path.

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup
.php