Japanese position on the introduction of XAdES to OPC.

[John Haug]

I had to dig back through old mail with the security folks who worked on this years ago.  If this is related to the question about “validation data” and MS-OFFCRYPTO seemingly requiring –C and disallowing –T, I’m told that’s not the intent.  OPC should allow whatever XAdES levels it defines; applications can choose whether to support various levels based on their needs and industry adoption.  I believe Microsoft Office supports all except -A.

John

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 1:48 AM
To: John Haug
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: Japanese position on the introduction of XAdES to OPC.



2015-05-29 3:21 GMT+09:00 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>>:
> Then, we will have two sets of conventions: Microsoft XAdES and the revised OPC.  They are unlikely to be identical.
I think this is the crux of what we need to figure out in detail.  My impression is that XAdES hasn’t changed terribly in its markup details, which would allow OPC to make restricting statements that would apply equally to current and upcoming XAdES.  I may be wrong.  Though if the differences are minor, we may simply note something like: for TS 101 903: foo, and for EN 319 132: bar.  We have a proposed set of requirements based on TS 101 903 in a draft we looked at in Bellevue, very similar to both MS-OFFCRYPTO and ODF 1.2, which we could evaluate against the latest draft of EN 319 132 to get a better idea of this.

The conventions on the use of the current XAdES, if standardized
as part of the OPC revision, would allow XAdES-A as well as -L/-X-L without
-C.   (This is the right thing to do.)  But how does  Microsoft Office as of now
 handle them?

JNSA experts believe that Microsoft Office cannot handle -L/-X-L without -C.
In other words, standardizing the conventions on the use of the
current XAdES may make Microsoft Office non-conformant.

Regards,
Makoto



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150605/afef0a76/attachment.html>