W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > May 2012

RE: EXI Canonicalization interest

From: Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 14:18:03 -0700
To: "edsimon@xmlsec.com" <edsimon@xmlsec.com>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
CC: "member-exi-wg@w3.org" <member-exi-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23204FACB677D84EBD57175AB7B5A71C01176D05F8D6@FMSAMAIL.fmsa.local>
Hi Ed,

Thank you for getting back to us on this.

We totally understand the difficulty involved in actively engaging in
the work of defining EXI-specific canonilization for people not yet very
familiar with EXI-internals. We therefore expect the EXI WG will need
to take care of the creation of the draft specification.

We appreciate that you offered help in reviewing the content of the
documents. It is especially valuable to have someone with securities
background take a look at the work. 

We will keep you posted on the developments, and look forward to 
getting our documents checked by a security expert.

Best regards,

Taki Kamiya
for the EXI Working Group



-----Original Message-----
From: edsimon@xmlsec.com [mailto:edsimon@xmlsec.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:15 AM
To: public-xmlsec@w3.org; Takuki Kamiya
Subject: RE: EXI Canonicalization interest

Hi Taki,

I have reviewed the work done by the EXI group and it seems to me that
developing an EXI-specific canonicalization would be a fairly
significant amount of work (not an unreasonable amount of work, but one
probably on the order of a few person-months at the minimum (and more
for someone not already well-acquainted with the EXI Format
specification)).

Part of the challenge is that EXI encapsulates a superset of information
than what is in plain, textual XML (e.g. strong data types). EXI also
supports XML 1.0 *and* 1.1 whereas Canonical XML 2.0 is only defined for
XML 1.0. 

Personally, I do not expect to have the time to actively participate in
the development of EXI-specific canonicalization but may be able to
review drafts that are produced.

Ed

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: EXI Canonicalization interest
From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2012 10:21 am
To: public-xmlsec@w3.org, tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com

Hi Taki,


I will try and contact you by mid-May to discuss this.


Best,
Ed


>>>
Hi Frederick,One of our members took a look at the latest Canonical XML
2.0draft. Although it appears to represent a leap from 1.0, it doesnot
seem to address our desire to bypass altogether the textural XML
representation in getting to the final hash value for signature.We,
therefore, are considering that we may want to work onnative
EXI-canonicalization in the next WG term.I would like to know if there
has been any discussion or interesthad by XML Security WG based on our
write-up [1] so far. I thinkthat if there are enough interest, the two
WGs would better beworking on it together.[1]
https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/EXI/wiki/EXISignatureThanks,-taki

<<<

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 21:20:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 21:20:16 GMT