XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030: Proposal"]

[MURATA Makoto]

Francis,

XML DSig 1.1 discourages or deprecates some features of DSig 1.0.
However, in my understanding, any digital signature conformant to
DSig 1.0 is also conformant to DSig 1.1.  I said so to Tracie in Barcelona.

I thus think that a normative ref to DSig 1.1 is good enough for
"allow for both DigSig 1.0 and 1.1 in the text".  If we normatively
reference DSig 1.0, we will recommend SHA-1.  I think that
we shouldn't.

Regards,
Makoto

2016-05-05 20:45 GMT+09:00 Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>:

> 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.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
> *Sent:* 04 May 2016 20:03
> *To:* 'SC34' <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
> *Subject:* XAdES Support and the Revised OPC [formerly "DR 11-0030:
> Proposal"]
>
>
>
> Hi there Murata-san,
>
>
>
> Below, you wrote, “We are committed to the introduction of XAdES EN
> into the OPC revision.”
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.”
>
>
>
> When this was agreed to, it was my understanding that there would **not**
> 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 **not** provide any
> support for XAdES at all.
>
>
>
> Rex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com <eb2mmrt at gmail.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *MURATA Makoto
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:41 AM
> *To:* SC34 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
> *Subject:* DR 11-0030: Proposal
>
>
>
> *DR 11-0030* - OPC:  Obsolete version of W3C XML Digital Signature 1.0
>
>
> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0030.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents
>
>
>
> This DR requests a change in the normative reference of Part 2 §3 from
> XMLDSig 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/) to
> XMLDSig 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/).
>
>
>
> We are committed to the introduction of XAdES EN into
>
> the OPC revision.  XAdES EN uses XML DSig 1.1
>
> rather than 1.0.  I thus believe that we cannot stick
>
> to DSig 1.0.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160602/a1b47fbd/attachment-0001.html>