Re: [xri] xml dsig profile

[Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>]

OK. I did not spell out my question well enough.

1) Did you reach a consensus on this XML Sig with simplified c14n way of 
doing?
2) Does it mean that you gave up the multiple XRDs with different 
authorities signing them?
3) If people can use these dsig elements etc., it is likely that they have 
XML Dsig liberary
     installed. Then, is it not better just to use a standard XML Dsig?

Regards,

=nat

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brian Eaton" <beaton@google.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:31 PM
To: "Sakimura Nat" <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>
Cc: "Peter Davis" <peter.davis@neustar.biz>; "George Fletcher" 
<george.fletcher@corp.aol.com>; "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>; 
<xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xri] xml dsig profile

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp> 
> wrote:
>> Finally, I am coming back.
>
> Welcome.
>
>> So, what is the status of XRD signature argument right now?
>
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XrdOne/XmlDsigProfile  (I've got an XML
> version too, if anyone prefers that.)
>
> That's basically the SimpleSign proposal, with three changes:
> 1) Reuse bits of the XML DSIG schema, because I got tired of cutting
> and pasting them.
> 2) Certificate chain support.
> 3) Signature in HTTP header.
>
> Dirk is working on integrating that spec into the step2 project
> (OpenID + OAuth hybrid protocol), hosted at
> http://code.google.com/p/step2/.
>