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

[Rex Jaeschke]

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] 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 <https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0030.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents> &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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160504/36c2095e/attachment.html>