RE: XML Security 1.1 Editorial Updates

Looks good Frederick. For the change in 3.3.3.2 I would perhaps have written:

" Note: For consistency with existing public key value element names (ds:RSAKeyValue, ds:DSAKeyValue), XML Signature 1.1 defined ECKeyValue instead of ECPublicKey."

You didn't think there was any reason to include anything about:

> - The document does not mention the work that led to the new elements "OCSPResponse", "DEREncodedKeyValue", "KeyInfoReference" 
> or "X509Digest". It might be useful to include a motivation for that work? (For dsig11:X509Digest there is already a pretty good motivation 
> in XML Dsig 1.1.).

then?
-- Magnus


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:55 PM
> To: Magnus Nystrom
> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-xmlsec@w3.org
> Subject: XML Security 1.1 Editorial Updates
> 
> I have updated the XML Security 1.1 Requirements editors draft
> 
> (1) to use ReSpec to pick up common formatting and updated references.
> 
> (2) I have also made updates related to your comments as noted below (and
> removed wrapping attack reference since it is not really relevant to 1.1 updates).
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlsec-reqs/Overview.html
> 
> Please let me also know of any issues with the draft, otherwise I suggest we
> publish this update in conjunction with the 1.1 CR publications.
> 
> (Also added wrapping attack reference to 2.0 requirements draft)
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 1:33 AM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote:
> 
> > Frederick, All,
> > I have compared the XML Security 1.1 Requirements and Design
> Considerations document against our deliverables. A few observations:
> >
> > - Section 3.2.3: The sub-subsections of this subsection should probably be
> changed to enumerated requirements or else the comparison in Section 3.2.4 is
> harder to follow.
> 
> Updated 3.2.3 to include R# in heading to ease referral
> 
> 
> > - Section 3.2.5.1: Change "cannot meet formally meet" to "cannot formally
> meet"
> fixed
> 
> > - Section 3.3.2.1:
> > a) Perhaps add that those requirements also apply to XML Encryption 1.1, as
> applicable (e.g. the SHA requirements).
> 
> agree, done
> 
> 
> > b)
> 
> > .
> 
> Added notes to this effect.
> 
> > - Section 3.3.3.2: We never defined an ECPublicKey type, we ended up with
> ECKeyValue (for good reason).
> 
> Added a note to this effect.
> 
> 
> > - The document does not mention the work that led to the new elements
> "OCSPResponse", "DEREncodedKeyValue", "KeyInfoReference" or "X509Digest".
> It might be useful to include a motivation for that work? (For dsig11:X509Digest
> there is already a pretty good motivation in XML Dsig 1.1.).
> >
> > Other than that I think this looks good.
> >
> > -- Magnus
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:56 AM
> >> To: Magnus Nystrom
> >> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-xmlsec@w3.org
> >> Subject: Editorial updates per ACTION-767 proposals
> >>
> >> I've completed the Editorial updates for
> >>
> >> 1. XML Encryption 1.1 (also made change to XML Signature 1.1 to unify
> >> handling of with/omit comments),
> >>
> >> 2. the XML Encryption 1.1 explanation document (also changed title),
> >> and
> >>
> >> 3. Generic Hybrid Ciphers.
> >>
> >> Still need to look at requirements document.
> >>
> >> Open:
> >>
> >> Need direct link for X9.44 (not a blocker for CR) Need RFC for
> >> ECC-ALGS (but not a blocker for CR) Update 1.1 cross references when
> >> going to CR
> >>
> >> regards, Frederick
> >>
> >> Frederick Hirsch
> >> Nokia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 17, 2011, at 11:54 AM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote:
> >>
> >>> Frederick, All,,
> >>> This is in response to ACTION-767 assigned to me last week.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know where the references are stored any longer so I have
> >>> not done
> >> any changes in the sources themselves but I did note the following:
> >>>
> >>> XML Encryption 1.1:
> >>> -------------------------
> >>> - The reference for NFC: The URL should be preceded by the string
> >>> "URL:" as for other references
> >>> - The reference for ANSI X9.52 should be linked as the reference for
> >>> ANSI
> >> X9.44. As it is right now, one only gets to the generic ANSI home page.
> >>> - The link to XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 1.1 will
> >>> need to be
> >> updated eventually; same for XML Encryption Syntax and Processing 1.1.
> >>> - For [ECC-ALGS], we should check if it has been given an RFC number
> >>> yet. I will
> >> follow up on this. I believe it should still be informative in this document.
> >>>
> >>> Outside of the references:
> >>> - Section 5.1.1: Should probably be consistent in how we reference
> >>> the
> >> "with"/"omit" comments; sometimes we write "(omit comments)" and
> >> sometimes "with comments" (i.e. without parenthesis) and sometimes
> >> "comments" is spelled with a capital "C".
> >>> - Section 8.2, replace "they will be" with "there will be"
> >>>
> >>> Explain:
> >>> -----------
> >>> - My affiliation should be changed to Microsoft.
> >>> - 3.3: Change "Clarify" to "Clarified that"
> >>> - 5.4.2: That change is not relative to 1.0 and so I am not sure it
> >>> should be in
> >> here.
> >>> - "Message Authentication ..." - change "200900602" to "20090602"
> >>> - 8.2: Change description of first change to: "Changed "MIME media
> >>> type
> >> name" to " Type name" and "MIME subtype name" to "Subtype name"
> >>>
> >>> Generic Hybrid Ciphers:
> >>> -----------------------------
> >>> - Section 9, "Acknowledgements" is empty; in line with the other
> >>> documents I
> >> suggest removing this section altogether and instead creating a
> >> Section 1.2 "Acknowledgements" with the following text:
> >>>
> >>> The contributions of the following Working Group members to this
> >> specification are gratefully acknowledged in accordance with the
> >> contributor policies and the active WG roster: Frederick Hirsch,
> >> Brian LaMacchia, Thomas Roessler, Magnus Nyström, Bruce Rich, Scott
> >> Cantor, Hal Lockhart, Cynthia Martin, Ed Simon, Pratik Datta and Meiko
> Jensen.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, we thank Burt Kaliski of EMC for his comments during
> >>> and
> >> subsequent to Last Call.
> >>>
> >>> - In Appendix A, the URL to [XMLENC-CORE1] and [XMLDSIG-CORE1]
> >>> should be
> >> updated, eventually, just as for XML Encryption 1.1.
> >>>
> >>> Requirements
> >>> -----------------
> >>> (I was not sure what to do here, but I did check the references
> >>> section as per below:)
> >>> - [C14N-REQS]: The URL is different between the hyperlink in the
> >>> title and the
> >> explicit URL.
> >>> - [C14N11]: Same as previous comment
> >>> - [EXI]: Missing hyperlink in title
> >>> - [Gajek]: Missing hyperlink in title
> >>> - [Infoset]: Missing hyperlink in title
> >>> - [McIntoshAustel] - Missing URL altogether. A possible URL is:
> >>> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1103022.1103026
> >>> - PKCS #5: Missing hyperlink in title
> >>> - RFC 2633 is obsoleted by RFC 3851
> >>> - SigProp: Different URL for title than for explicit URL.
> >>> - XMLDsig2nd: Missing hyperlink in title
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> -- Magnus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 06:23:50 UTC