<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-04-08 8:04 GMT+09:00 John Haug <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com" target="_blank">johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">>
</span>It uses a new namespaces for many of the existing elements. Thus,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">data conforming to XAdES 101 903 (such as exisiting<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OFF-CRYPTO XAdES) will never conform to XAdES 319 132.<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">This is a good point to raise. Do we want to preclude the existing in-market XAdES from being used in OPC? </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The use of the existing XAdES as described in OFF-CRYPTO is certainly </div><div>allowed by OPC, since OFF-CRYPTO takes advantages of extension points </div><div>of OPC (e.g., the Object element). When we revise OPC, we should continue </div><div>to provide these extension points and continue to allow the use of the existing </div><div>XAdES as described in OFF-CRYPTO.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I think that may not be a good idea. At this point,
the new XAdES is still a draft and will take some years to be approved by EU member states plus quite some years to possibly be adopted by industry. I can see allowing for the possibility of the new version, but I don’t think we ought to prevent the current
method from being used, even though it does have shortcomings addressed by the new version. I think any OPC-specific requirements we add can be specified in a manner that is XAdES version agnostic. For example, the ones in the draft text we looked at in
Bellevue that were based on MS-OFFCRYPTO and ODF. I think the normative references could allow both XAdES. This is a good topic for broader discussion.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have to distinguish two things: (A) the use of XAdES is allowed, and </div><div>(B) conventions for using XAdES are standardized. To do (A), we only </div><div>have to provide extension points. To do (B), we have to reference XAdES </div><div>specs and introduce normative sentences.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that we need (A1) and (B1) shown below:</div><div><br></div><div> (A1) the use of the existing XAdES is allowed, </div><div><br></div><div> (B1) conventions for using the upcoming XAdES are standardized</div><div><br></div><div>Does this sound reasonable?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">John<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>MURATA Makoto<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> SC34<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: OPC revision on top of XAdES 319 132-1 and -2<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Q3: Should we introduce a new value for<br>
ds:Reference/@Type? (My two cents: Yes)<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">But this is mistaken. Both the new and legacy <br>
versions of XAdES use<br>
<a href="http://uri.etsi.org/01903#SignedProperties" target="_blank">http://uri.etsi.org/01903#SignedProperties</a> <br>
We have to use it.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John left a comment on 12.6 (Generating Signatures) amd 12.7<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Validating Signatures) on his draft text for incorporating XAdES.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">His comment is:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Does anything need to change here for XAdES?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, the new version of XAdES clearly says (in the Scope):<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Procedures for creation and validation of XAdES <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> digital signatures are out of scope and specified in EN 319 102<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, the incorporation of XAdES does not require any changes to these<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">clauses.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Makoto<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-04-01 9:16 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear colleagues,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I reported the result of the Seattle meeting to XAdES<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">experts in Japan. They are happy to hear that SC34 and<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ETSI are likely to work together. I spoke with Kimura-san<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">and find that another committee in ETSI become a liaison of<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">another JTC1 committee recently by submitting a document to<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">JTC1. I sent that document to Juan and requested his<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">committee to submit it to JTC1.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that we should use the upcoming version of XAdES<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(319 132-1 [1] and 132-2 [2]) rather than the current<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">version (101 903) as a basis of our OPC revision. It uses<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">a new namespaces for many of the existing elements. Thus,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">data conforming to XAdES 101 903 (such as exisiting<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">OFF-CRYPTO XAdES) will never conform to XAdES 319 132.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the issues in XAdES 101 903 is that the<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">relationships among conformance levels is very unclear.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">XAdES 319 132 is much better than that. It now makes clear<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">which conformnace level requires which element in Annexes.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But what should our spec look like? Here are some questions.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Q1: Shoulld we reference both 319 132-1 and 132-2? (My two cents: Yes)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Q2: Should we introduce a new value for Object/@Id? (My two cents: No)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Q3: Should we introduce a new value for ds:Reference/@Type? (My two cents: Yes)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Q4: Should we introduce some additional requirements on XAdES by <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> eliminating some options? (I have no ideas here.)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Makoto<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">[1] <a href="http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-1v009-XAdES-BuildingBlocksAndBaselineSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf" target="_blank">http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-1v009-XAdES-BuildingBlocksAndBaselineSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">[2] <a href="http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-2v009-XAdES-ExtendedSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf" target="_blank">http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-2v009-XAdES-ExtendedSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br>
<br>
Makoto<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><br>Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br><br>Makoto</div>
</div></div>