<div dir="ltr">I forgot to mention schema issues. My conclusion is <div>that (1) and (2) actually provides no schema differences.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>DSig 1.0 uses xmldsig-core-schema.xsd.</div><div><br></div><div>DSig .1 uses xmldsig11-schema.xsd, which</div><div>imports xmldsig-core-schema.xsd.</div><div><br></div><div>Thus, both (1) and (2) need xmldsig-core-schema.xsd</div><div>and xmldsig-core-schema.xsd.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Makoto</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-10-23 21:08 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" target="_blank">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>We have to decide what OPC V2 should reference </div><div>as the definition of XML digital signatures. (1) DSig 1.1, </div><div>or (2) DSig 1.0 (second edition) as well as DSig 1.1?</div><div><br></div><div>1. Data conformance</div><div><br></div><div>I believe that signatures conformant to DSig 1.0 are</div><div>guranteed to conform to DSig 1.1. If this is the</div><div>case, (1) is good enough.</div><div><br></div><div>But (2) is not harmful. A digital signature is</div><div>required to conform to either DSig 1.0 or DSig 1.1.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Conformance of signature generators</div><div><br></div><div>Since generators are not required to use every</div><div>feature of XML DSig, generators restricted to DSig</div><div>1.0 conform to DSig 1.1. Thus, I believe that (1) is</div><div>good enough.</div><div><br></div><div>But if we choose (2), what should be the requirements</div><div>on generators?</div><div><br></div><div>Status quo is shown below:</div><div><br></div><div> > 13.4 Generating Signatures</div><div> ></div><div> > The steps for signing package contents follow</div><div> > the algorithm outlined in §3.1 of the W3C</div><div> > Recommendation “XMLSignature Syntax and</div><div> > Processing,” with some modification for</div><div> > package-specific constructs...</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a rewrite based on (2).</div><div><br></div><div> > 13.4 Generating Signatures</div><div> ></div><div> > The steps for signing package contents follow</div><div> > the algorithm outlined in §3.1 of the W3C</div><div> > Recommendation “XMLSignature Syntax and</div><div> > Processing 1.0 (second edition)”or “XML Signature</div><div> > Syntax and Processing Version 1.1,” with some modification for</div><div> > package-specific constructs...</div><div><br></div><div>I do not see any advantages, but I do not see any</div><div>disadvantages either.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Conformance of signature validators</div><div><br></div><div>One could argue that (2) provides some advantages,</div><div>since some new algorithms in DSig 1.1 are made</div><div>mandatory. We might want to allow legacy validators</div><div>restricted to 1.0 while encouraging validators to support</div><div>1.1.</div><div><br></div><div>Status quo is shown below:</div><div><br></div><div> > 13.5 Validating Signatures</div><div> > </div><div> > Consumers validate signatures following the</div><div> > steps described in §3.2 of the W3C</div><div> > Recommendation “XMLSignature Syntax and</div><div> > Processing.”...</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a rewrite based on (2).<br></div><div><br></div><div> > 13.5 Validating Signatures</div><div> > </div><div> > Consumers are required to validate signatures</div><div> > following the steps described in §3.2 of</div><div> > either “XMLSignature Syntax and Processing 1.0</div><div> > (second edition)”or “XML Signature Syntax and</div><div> > Processing Version 1.1”. Consumers should support</div><div> > “XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 1.1”</div><div> > but may support “XMLSignature Syntax and Processing 1.0</div><div> > (second edition)”.</div><div><br></div><div>This paragraph allows validators not to support new elements and</div><div>algorithms of DSig 1.1. I do not know whether MS Office supports</div><div>them or not.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="m_-7897163141344109600gmail_signature">Regards,<br>Makoto</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>