[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xcbf] Vendor Specific Formats
Clause 2.1.6 "BioAPI_BIR_BIOMETRIC_DATA_FORMAT" of the BioAPI specification states that the IBIA is the registrar for the valid values of FormatOwner. Any associated type paired with this registered format owner identifier is defined by the owner and may optionally be registered by the IBIA. The BioAPI specification assumes that value of FormatOwner and the associated value of FormatType are always 16 bit integers, as shown in the following definition: typedef struct bioapi_bir_biometric_data_format { uint16 FormatOwner; uint16 FormatID; } BioAPI_BIR_BIOMETRIC_DATA_FORMAT, *BioAPI_BIR_BIOMETRIC_DATA_FORMAT_PTR; NOTE: FormatOwner values are assigned and registered by the International Biometric Industry Association (IBIA). FormatType is assigned by the Format Owner and may optionally be registered by the IBIA. Contact information for the IBIA is located in Section 1.5 of this specification. Though the IBIA registry currently shows that there have been no format types registered by their list of format owners, a look at the example BIR records reveals that the SecuGen data carries an associated integer value. So, to reflect that reality I've changed the schema definition for the information object set Owner object { BIOMETRIC id : ibia-SecuGen } | to the following { BIOMETRIC id : ibia-SecuGen DATA BIRint16 } | and added a new constrained integer type BIRint16 ::= INTEGER (0..65535) This raises the question (below) of whether all of the other IBIA format owner objects in the Owner information object set should also be changed to use BIRint16. A cursory look at the IBIA registry web page reveals that the registrar fails to mention any relationship between their registered FormatOwner values and the OIDs and relative OIDs in X9.84. There is no no indication there that X9 assumes these hex values are relative OIDs that are registered under the OID arc in X9.84 as relative OIDs by agreement between X9 and the IBIA - noted in X9.84. This raises a second question (below) of the need in XCBF for more detailed accompanying registry information that describes these values in an X9.84 and XCBF context. Note that the BIR FormatOwner and FormatType fields can be mapped to the following X9.84 ASN.1 type: Format ::= SEQUENCE { formatOwner BIOMETRIC.&name({Owner}), formatType BIOMETRIC.&Type({Owner}{@formatOwner}) OPTIONAL } Both components of this type are based on the &name and &Type fields of the BIOMETRIC information object class: BIOMETRIC ::= CLASS { &name BIOMETRIC-IDENTIFIER UNIQUE, &Type OPTIONAL } WITH SYNTAX { BIOMETRIC &name [ DATA &Type ] } BIOMETRIC-IDENTIFIER ::= CHOICE { oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, -- complete object identifier id RELATIVE-OID -- object identifier fragment } This class definition gives X9.84 format owner and type values much greater flexibility of type and range of values than those that can be specified in the simple BIR bit map defintion of BioAPI. In X9.84 a BIR FormatOwner can be carried by the relative OID choice alternative, "id", of the formatOwner component of type Format, and any ASN.1 type can be associated with the formatOwner value using the formatType component of type Format. And it is possible to map any valid BIR values into the components of the X9.84 Format type. But since the X9.84 formatOwner component is defined to be either a complete object identifier or a relative object identifier (a fragment of an OID), it is possible to specify valid format owner values using the ASN.1 defined in our X9.84 schema that can not be mapped to a BIR record. And since the X9.84 formatType component is defined as an 'open type', which can be any ASN.1 type, it it is possible to specify valid format types using the ASN.1 defined in our X9.84 schema that can not be mapped to a BIR record. Generally, this is not a problem, since we always perform cryptographic enhancements on values of type BiometricObject. It is not important whether these initial BiometricObject values were created based purely on the X9.84 ASN.1 schema, or whether they were mapped from a BIR record to form a value of type BiometricObject. But this does mean that not all values of the X9.84 type BiometricObject can be represented as BioAPI BIR records. And it indicates to me that replacing the BIR bit map in the BioAPI with the X9.84 BiometricObject would improve that standard and simplify applying security to biometric objects. These issues need to be thoroughly addressed somewhere in the XCBF documentation. One problem that we must find a way to deal with is how to best define the associated type, if any, in the Owner information objects: - Should they all be assumed to be type BIRint16? This is one approach we could take and not an illogical one since all of the current format owners seem to be BioAPI Consortium members and the IBIA registry seems only to support BioAPI BIR requirements and ignores X9.84 capabilities. - Should they all be defined as some open type so that the format owners are left free to define their own ASN.1 types? For example, BIRopen ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER.&Type A second problem is the need to expand on the IBIA registry information. Should XCBF take on the task of defining it's own version of the information found in the IBIA registry augmented by what we can find out about associated FormatType usage? This would seem necessary, as this would give us the opportunity to show how these format owner and format type values are specified using the ASN.1 XML Value Notation or as DER or XER encodings. It would also serve as a point of reference for XCBF implementors. Comments? Ideas? Phil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC