[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes
John, John Larmouth wrote: > Hopefully all this stuff will be approved (at least by ITU-T) long > before any OASIS work using it is approved. But I agree that part of X9.84:2002 will complete its revision review and ballot long before January. Other than lack of inputs by its members, there is no reason that XCBF could not be completed in a month or so. The last impediment to completion was how to reliably perform encryption processing. The plan was to await X9F defining a solution that we could adopt. This work has now been completed. > the problem here is that Phil is making assumptions about the form and > direction of work in progress. Not at all. I am looking at conforming to cXER for the cryptographic payloads in X9.84 and XCBF. All else need only be valid XML really, though basing as closely as possible to XER would seem to be more simple. But there have to date been NO inputs to the XCBF work by the insiders developing the ASN.1 standards. If you (collectively) really intend to influence XCBF and X9.84 in any meaningful way, you will need to be proactive. These two standards have a shelf life that can be easily overtaken by events. Personally, I intend to either finish or be finished with both before the end of the year. Phil > John L > > > Ed Day wrote: > >>>VXER - Variant XER - *will* provide a BASE64 transfer, but VXER is not >>>canonical >>> >>What is this? There is no mention of it anywhere I can find on the web >>(this is also true of the XCN acronym used in some prior XCBF e-mails). It >>seems that if you are going to be using these standards to define new specs, >>they should at least be published somewhere.. >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk> >>To: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com> >>Cc: "Phil Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>; "xcbf" >><xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org> >>Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:36 AM >>Subject: Re: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes >> >> >>>CXER does not support encoding instructions. So an octet string value >>>in CXER can only be transferred using hex. >>> >>>VXER - Variant XER - *will* provide a BASE64 transfer, but VXER is not >>>canonical. >>> >>>(We have discussed providing a CVXER - Canonical Variant XER, but we >>>have almost agreed not to, at least at present, for some very good >>>reasons: it is very difficult, and it will delay the progression of >>>VXER, which we know is needed.) >>> >>>As Ed rightly says, there is no way you can have canonical encodings >>>that allow both hex and base64 for an OCTET STRING, even if you have a >>>"format=" attribute. For canonical encodings, there is just one, and >>>only one, way of encoding an octet string. For CXER, that is hex. >>> >>>John L >>> >>> >>>Ed Day wrote: >>> >>>>I thought in a canonical XER encoding things could be done one way and >>>> >>only >> >>>>one way. Doesn't introducing these attributes violate the canonical >>>> >>rules? >> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Ed Day >>>>Principal Engineer >>>>Objective Systems, Inc. >>>>Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020 >>>>Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913 >>>>Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only) >>>>mailto:eday@obj-sys.com >>>>http://www.obj-sys.com >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Phil Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com> >>>>To: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:02 AM >>>>Subject: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes >>>> >>>> >>>>>I proposed on 8/6 that the following XML markup be used >>>>>in XCBF. >>>>> >>>>> <version> ........................ </version> >>>>> <digestAlgorithms> ............... </digestAlgorithms> >>>>> <encapContentInfo> ............... </encapContentInfo> >>>>> <certificates format='base64'> ... </certificates> >>>>> <crls format='base64'> ........... </crls> >>>>> <signerInfos> .................... </signerInfos> >>>>> >>>>>The signature component of the SIGNATURE parameterized >>>>>type identifies a value of type BIT STRING. These bits >>>>>are not used as bit flags, and signatures tend to be in >>>>>the thousands of bits in length and can more easily and >>>>>compactly be represented as OCTET STRINGs. I propose that >>>>>the following XML markup be used for these values: >>>>> >>>>> <signature format='hex'> ... </signature> >>>>> >>>>>So far, I have received no comments. Unless I hear comments >>>>>that use of these attributes is unacceptable, I will include >>>>>them in the next release of the XCBF document. >>>>> >>>>>Phil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >>>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >>>> >>>-- >>> Prof John Larmouth >>> Larmouth T&PDS Ltd >>> (Training and Protocol Development Services) >>> 1 Blueberry Road >>> Bowdon j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk >>> Cheshire WA14 3LS Tel: +44 161 928 1605 >>> England Fax: +44 161 928 8069 >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >>> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC