W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Importing 1.0 while normatively referencing 1.1 ( LC-2544)

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:43:33 +0000
To: <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0DC1D027-489D-44F8-AA2D-A8A1C8E4C5D2@nokia.com>
Makoto

We have corrected gh-example.xml (found in the generic-hybrid-ciphers Drafts directory, not sure which path you followed to reach it).

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Aug/0096.html

The correction to the example file did not require any schema file changes.

thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:39 PM, ext MURATA Makoto wrote:

> I have to revisit this issue, since a test document gh-example.xml (in
> the directory "xml encryption test files")
> has
> 
>  <ds:KeyInfo>
>    <dsig11:ECKeyValue>
>      <dsig11:NamedCurve URI="urn:oid:1.2.840.10045.3.1.7"/>
>      <dsig11:PublicKey>DEADBEEF</dsig11:PublicKey>
>    </dsig11:ECKeyValue>
>  </ds:KeyInfo>
> 
> To validate this ECKeyValue element, we need the schema for Signature 1.1.
> 
> But this example document might be simply incorrect.  I see other errors
> such as
> 
>    Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2009/xmlenc11#GenericHybridCipher"
> 
> which is not a valid algorithm identifer.  Is my copy obsolete?
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 2011/8/19 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>:
>> Agreed.  Thanks.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>> 
>> 2011/8/17  <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>:
>>> 
>>>  Dear MURATA Makoto ,
>>> 
>>> The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
>>> the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Encryption Syntax and Processing
>>> Version 1.1 published on 13 May 2010. Thank you for having taken the time
>>> to review the document and to send us comments!
>>> 
>>> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>>> 
>>> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
>>> public-xmlsec@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 22 August 2011. In
>>> case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for
>>> or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot
>>> be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
>>> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this
>>> document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> For the XML Security Working Group,
>>> Thomas Roessler
>>> W3C Staff Contact
>>> 
>>>  1.
>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CALvn5EAQnAT-i4xB0HV+29ta0fp=ijcg77BfofM3o1x44U0jQg@mail.gmail.com
>>>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmlenc-core1-20100513/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =====
>>> 
>>> Your comment on 9.1 XSD Schema XML Encryption Core Schema Instance
>>> xenc-sc...:
>>>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not import xmldsig11-schema.xsd but
>>>> rather import xmldsigschema.xsd.  However, XML Encryption 1.1
>>>> normatively references to XML Signature 1.1 rather than 1.0.
>>>> Which is correct?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Working Group Resolution (LC-2544):
>>> The working group decided to not make any change here as
>>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not require any definitions from
>>> xmldsig-11-schema.xsd. All that is required is ds:DigestMethod from
>>> xmldsigschmema.xsd; so the current inclusion is correct and does not
>>> include unnecessary material.
>>> 
>>> Thus the schema import is correct as is the normative reference to XML
>>> SIgnature 1.1 (e.g. to pick up normative changes that are not necessarily
>>> reflected by schema changes)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>> 
>> Makoto
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> 
> Makoto
> 
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 18:44:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 September 2011 18:44:22 GMT