<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>My recollection accords with the meeting minutes. As I understand it, there is a consensus that we normatively need to allow for both versions of DSig, so that existing implementations (such as MSOFFCRYPTO) are still conformant, but we can also recommend use of the XAdES EN in an informative annex. I presume that what Murata-san means is that we are committed to introduce text into the OPC revisions that is in line with that consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Francis<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> 04 May 2016 20:03<br><b>To:</b> 'SC34' <e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org><br><b>Subject:</b> XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030: Proposal"]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Hi there Murata-san, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Below, you wrote, “We are committed to the introduction of XAdES EN into the OPC revision.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I’m asking for clarification of this statement, so it is not misunderstood. At a glance, it seems to be making a broader claim that I thought WG4 had agreed to.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>From the Barcelona meeting minutes: “On Tuesday, in WG4 discussions: There was consensus that we should produce an informative annex describing a profile for XAdES appropriate for use with OPC, and allow for both DigSig 1.0 and 1.1 in the text.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>When this was agreed to, it was my understanding that there would *<b>not</b>* be any mandatory normative text re XAdES in the new OPC spec. Instead, the informative profile would give directions as to how an implementation could support XAdES, if it chose to do so. Specifically, a conforming implementation of the next edition of 29500-2 need *<b>not</b>* provide any support for XAdES at all. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Rex<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</a> [<a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com">mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>MURATA Makoto<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:41 AM<br><b>To:</b> SC34 <<a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> DR 11-0030: Proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>DR 11-0030</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> - OPC: Obsolete version of W3C XML Digital Signature 1.0<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><a href="https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0030.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents" target="_blank">https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0030.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This DR requests a change in the normative reference of Part 2 §3 from XMLDSig 1.0 (<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/</a>) to XMLDSig 1.1 (<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>We are committed to the introduction of XAdES EN into <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>the OPC revision. XAdES EN uses XML DSig 1.1 <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>rather than 1.0. I thus believe that we cannot stick <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>to DSig 1.0.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Regards,<br>Makoto<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>