OPC revision on top of XAdES 319 132-1 and -2

[MURATA Makoto]

I wrote:

Q3: Should we introduce a new value for
ds:Reference/@Type?  (My two cents: Yes)

But this is mistaken.  Both the new and legacy
versions of XAdES use
http://uri.etsi.org/01903#SignedProperties
We have to use it.

John left a comment on 12.6 (Generating Signatures) amd 12.7
(Validating Signatures) on his draft text for incorporating XAdES.
His comment is:

      Does anything need to change here for XAdES?

Meanwhile, the new version of XAdES clearly says (in the Scope):

  Procedures for creation and validation of XAdES
  digital signatures are out of scope and specified in EN 319 102

So, the incorporation of XAdES does not require any changes to these
clauses.

Regards,
Makoto

2015-04-01 9:16 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I reported the result of the Seattle meeting to XAdES
> experts in Japan.  They are happy to hear that SC34 and
> ETSI are likely to work together.  I spoke with Kimura-san
> and find that another committee in ETSI become a liaison of
> another JTC1 committee recently by submitting a document to
> JTC1.  I sent that document to Juan and requested his
> committee to submit it to JTC1.
>
> I believe that we should use the upcoming version of XAdES
> (319 132-1 [1] and 132-2 [2]) rather than the current
> version (101 903) as a basis of our OPC revision.  It uses
> a new namespaces for many of the existing elements.  Thus,
> data conforming to XAdES 101 903 (such as exisiting
> OFF-CRYPTO XAdES) will never conform to XAdES 319 132.
>
> One of the issues in XAdES 101 903 is that the
> relationships among conformance levels is very unclear.
> XAdES 319 132 is much better than that.  It now makes clear
> which conformnace level requires which element in Annexes.
>
> But what should our spec look like?  Here are some questions.
>
> Q1: Shoulld we reference both 319 132-1 and 132-2?  (My two cents: Yes)
>
> Q2: Should we introduce a new value  for Object/@Id?  (My two cents: No)
>
> Q3: Should we introduce a new value for ds:Reference/@Type?  (My two
> cents: Yes)
>
> Q4: Should we introduce some additional requirements on XAdES by
>     eliminating some options?  (I have no ideas here.)
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> [1]
> http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-1v009-XAdES-BuildingBlocksAndBaselineSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf
> [2]
> http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-2v009-XAdES-ExtendedSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150404/497a5f07/attachment.html>