<div dir="ltr"><div>I propose to send a question to <a href="mailto:public-xmlsec@w3.org">public-xmlsec@w3.org</a>, </div><div>and ask questions about the differences between DSig 1.0 </div><div>and 1.1.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is my draft.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div>Dear colleagues,</div><div><br></div><div>I am writing this mail as the convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4, which</div><div>maintains OOXML. WG4 is trying to create a new version of OPC (Open</div><div>Packaging Conventions) of OOXML. The biggest change in this version</div><div>is the introduction of XAdES EN.</div><div><br></div><div>The existing version of OPC uses the first edition of DSig 1.0. But</div><div>XAdES EN normatively references DSig 1.1. What should the new version</div><div>of OPC should reference?</div><div><br></div><div>We are aware of "Functional Explanation of Changes in XML Signature</div><div>1.1", "Changes in XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second</div><div>Edition)", "Implementation report for XML Signature, Second Edition",</div><div>and "XML Signature 1.1 Interop Test Report". We understand that</div><div>migration from SHA-1 to newer algorithms is the biggest difference</div><div>introduced by DSig 1.1.</div><div><br></div><div>Since XAdES EN references DSig 1.1, we believe that OPC should also</div><div>reference DSig 1.1. But should OPC reference DSig 1.0 as well?</div><div><br></div><div>To resolve this issue, we would like to ask some some questions. Your</div><div>thoughtful advice would be truly appreciated.</div><div><br></div><div>Q1: Are data conformant to DSig 1.0 guaranteed to conform to DSig 1.1?</div><div><br></div><div>In my interpretation, X509IssuerSerial is deprecated and the use of</div><div>SHA-1,HMAC-SHA1,RSA-SHA1, ECDSA-SHA1, XPath tranform is discouraged.</div><div>But no features were removed. Thus, the answer to Q1 is Yes. Is our</div><div>interpretation correct?</div><div><br></div><div>Q2: Is the support of all new required features of DSig 1.1 common?</div><div><br></div><div>I heard from a XAdES expert that most implementations of XAdES EN</div><div>actually support DSig 1.0 rather than DSig 1.1. I had a quick look at</div><div>"XML Signature 1.1 Interop Test Report". But few implementations</div><div>appear to support all features. Do implementations support all</div><div>required features of DSig 1.1?</div><div><br></div><div>Q3: Even when some features of DSig 1.1 are required, is it OK for OPC to</div><div>make them optional?</div><div><br></div><div>If the answer to Q2 is not positive, WG4 might want to make the</div><div>support of some DSig 1.1 features optional, although they are required</div><div>by DSig 1.1. This is arguably bad, but might be better than</div><div>referencing DSig 1.0, which recommends SHA-1.</div><div><br></div><div>We are looking forward to your reply.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-06-02 23:01 GMT+09:00 Shawn Villaron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shawnv@microsoft.com" target="_blank">shawnv@microsoft.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">And I believe that this discussion indicates more investigation is necessary before we can commit to any particular course of action. I’ll circle with Darrin and see what
we can do from our side.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_5862147161177796061__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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> Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> SC34 <<a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org" target="_blank">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</a>></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030: Proposal"]<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I vaguely remember that Tracie said that Microsoft implements <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">most of the mandatory algorithms. But Tracie left Microsoft.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">BTW, I heard from my Japanese XAdES colleague that few of the <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">XAdES EN implementations support mandatory algorithms in <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">DSig 1.1.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-06-02 19:05 GMT+09:00 Francis Cave <<a href="mailto:francis@franciscave.com" target="_blank">francis@franciscave.com</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Murata-san</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It is obviously preferable if we only have to reference the latest version of XML DSig. From a cursory
glance at the specifications, the following paragraph appears to summarise the changes in XML DSig 1.1 that affect conformance:</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“</span><span lang="EN-GB">Conformance-affecting changes of XML Signature 1.1 against [the] previous
recommendation mainly affect the set of mandatory to implement cryptographic algorithms, including Elliptic Curve DSA (and mark-up for corresponding key material), and additional hash algorithms. A detailed explanation of changes since the last Recommendation
are available [<cite><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.w3.org%2fTR%2f2013%2fREC-xmldsig-core1-20130411%2f%23bib-XMLDSIG-CORE1-CHGS&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=3IHKp2sqTeRypHJ2AVU9prjjgkHlMgWMNfhAR82nrhk%3d" target="_blank">XMLDSIG-CORE1-CHGS</a></cite>].
Changes are also described in a <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.w3.org%2fTR%2f2013%2fREC-xmldsig-core1-20130411%2fOverview_diff_rec.html&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=0Zn%2bsUCiAlq0i736C0A%2fS33WxFSOJaqd3nR1fLTr0pU%3d" target="_blank">
diff document showing changes since the Second Edition</a>, as well as a <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.w3.org%2fTR%2f2013%2fREC-xmldsig-core1-20130411%2fOverview_diff.html&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=CPtqgibMyv1c46AnNuY61%2f2vvUPubs5iqkJfl95YvAY%3d" target="_blank">
diff document showing changes since the previous PR draft</a>.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">”</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Since this is not my area of expertise, I’m not sure whether we have already adequately reviewed the
changes in XML DSig 1.1. Does this need more discussion in Prague? I guess that we need the Ecma team to confirm that they agree that referencing XML DSig 1.1 and not the previous edition won’t break existing implementations.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Kind regards,</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Francis</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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> 02 June 2016 08:31<br>
<b>To:</b> Francis Cave <<a href="mailto:francis@franciscave.com" target="_blank">francis@franciscave.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> SC34 <<a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org" target="_blank">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030: Proposal"]</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Francis,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">XML DSig 1.1 discourages or deprecates some features of DSig 1.0. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">However, in my understanding, any digital signature conformant to <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">DSig 1.0 is also conformant to DSig 1.1. I said so to Tracie in Barcelona.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I thus think that a normative ref to DSig 1.1 is good enough for <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">"allow for both DigSig 1.0 and 1.1 in the text". If we normatively <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">reference DSig 1.0, we will recommend SHA-1. I think that <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">we shouldn't.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Makoto<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">2016-05-05 20:45 GMT+09:00 Francis Cave <<a href="mailto:francis@franciscave.com" target="_blank">francis@franciscave.com</a>>:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Francis</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Rex Jaeschke [mailto:</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:rex@RexJaeschke.com" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rex@RexJaeschke.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 May 2016 20:03<br>
<b>To:</b> 'SC34' <</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030: Proposal"]</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Hi there Murata-san,
</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.”</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.”</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Rex</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> [</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>MURATA Makoto<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> SC34 <</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> DR 11-0030: Proposal</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">DR 11-0030</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> - OPC: Obsolete version
of W3C XML Digital Signature 1.0</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fskydrive.live.com%2fview.aspx%2fPublic%2520Documents%2f2011%2fDR-11-0030.docx%3fcid%3dc8ba0861dc5e4adc%26sc%3ddocuments&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UUcpEtQBa0ZI0h6EkapdnpayPl95HI3iQ1W1K4lKoxs%3d" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0030.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 (</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.w3.org%2fTR%2f2002%2fREC-xmldsig-core-20020212%2f&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Rghx4cXmTQxklEGXnVjC%2bIWq%2bBVls5luhfz4X4SyALQ%3d" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">)
to XMLDSig 1.1 (</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.w3.org%2fTR%2fxmldsig-core1%2f&data=01%7c01%7cshawnv%40microsoft.com%7cbb6c001921a04da3a42808d38acedde6%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=%2b5ybHVsZ7nRtOqBmcTCVubcIjGy9P7zA7YZlUxGwcq8%3d" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">).</span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are committed to the introduction of XAdES EN into <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">the OPC revision. XAdES EN uses XML DSig 1.1 <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">rather than 1.0. I thus believe that we cannot stick <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">to DSig 1.0.<span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<br>
Makoto<span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">--
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br>
<br>
Makoto<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br>Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake<br><br>Makoto</div>
</div>