W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Proposed processing model for Reference and Transforms

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:38:38 -0700
To: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, "Gregor. Karlinger@Iaik. At" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>, "Ed Simon" <ed.simon@entrust.com>
Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <jboyer@csr.csc.UVic.CA>
Message-ID: <BFEDKCINEPLBDLODCODKMEIMCEAA.jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Hello all,

1. Used CSS to show changes
2. XSLT and Minimal C14N
3. Answers to questions posted so far

1. Used CSS
===========
Attached is a new copy of the overview that implements the CSS
recommendation Joseph made.  My additions are green underlined, the stuff I
struck is in blue.  Normal URLs may also be blue on your browser, but they
aren't struck out so there should be no confusion.

The prior editors' additions are red underlined, and their strike outs are
in grey.  So, if it's not green underlined or blue struck out, I didn't do
it :)

Other than that, I didn't do anything except fix a tiny error, which I
marked with strike in Section 6.5.1.

2. XSLT and Minimal C14N
========================
I forgot to mention these changes in yesterday's manifest:

a) I added more text to clear up our expectations regarding the XSLT
transform.  I'd be particularly interested in review from Ed Simon and
others who care a lot about this transform because I did not write it as 'we
expect canonicalization of the result
tree', as Ed's previous email indicated.  The reason is that the result tree
may not be describing XML, which means that c14n of the result tree is not
well-defined.  The rest is self-explanatory if you read the text.

b) I added more words to minimal c14n to try capturing what people actually
intend for this transform.  It really needs to be reviewed by those who care
about it.  Basically, the problem stems from the fact that we changed the
processing model to allow node-set input.  If your intent was to minimally
canonicalize XML derived from within the same document, then it is
impossible to do this without doing Canonical XML (which obviates the need
for minimal c14n) or adding something like the words I added, which can be
very hard to implement in the general sense.

===========================================================================
This is a response to the excellent questions posted so far by Joseph,
Gregor and Kent.

A) Joseph: No explicit C14N? (It's implied?)

John: It's only implied if the final result of URI dereference and
Transforms is an XPath node-set (or sufficiently functional alternative).
If you dereference a URI to an external resource, the result is an octet
stream.  If you apply a base-64 transform or a minimal canonicalization, the
result is still an octet stream, so there's no Canonical C14N applied.

But, if you use a same document reference like URI="#ID", the result is a
node-set.  The DigestMethod requires an octet stream, so we automatically
apply C14N to convert node-set to octet stream.  This was done because we
agreed on the teleconference that we needed to specify how URI="#ID" was
going to turn into an octet stream, and we agreed that it should be C14N,
but the WG did not want the verbosity of setting up a Transforms element
with a C14N Transform just to get the text of an identified element.

B) Joseph: Regarding Don's comment, do we need a parse me transform?  Or
will this be implicit...

John: Didn't seem to need to do it explicitly.  In fact, by leaving it
implicit and defining the I/O for each transform, I was able to improve the
b64 transform so that it automatically stripped the start and end tags,
internal comments and PIs, etc. when the input was a node-set.

C) Gregor: How can the result of the XPath expression test be treated as a
boolean?

John: Anything in XPath can be converted to a boolean.  However, note that
the XPath expressions one must now write are more like those one would write
for an XSLT template.  It's just the predicate expression that used to be in
the square brackets of the former XPath transform, because the XPath
transform has been rewritten to automatically iterate through the input
node-set (or the node-set formed from the input octet stream).

The reason for this change is that the WG requested on the last
teleconference that we keep to a minimum the number of times we actually had
to c14n.  I agree with this request.  We now pass a node-set from transform
to transform if it is possible to do so.  The problem is, consider the
nature of the output node-set of an XPath or enveloped signature transform.
The output is not a node-set that just contains the root node.  It is a
node-set that contains all nodes that should be carried forward to the next
step (which could be c14n).  So, what if you have an enveloped signature
transform followed by an XPath transform?  I expect this to be a common
scenario in my software.  The output of the enveloped signature transform is
a 'full' node-set.  Unless I were to duplicate the parse tree and shave out
all of the omitted nodes, then there is no way I can reset the node-set back
to just having its root element.  In other words, unless I do nearly as much
CPU work as if I'd just done a c14n and then reparsed the document for the
XPath transform, I need to handle the case where the input node-set is a
full node-set, not a node-set that has the root node with context position
and size 1.

By the way, I am assuming that iterating a full node-set, creating a new
node-set containing a single node and evaluating the expression w.r.t. that
node-set is cost-effective.  I assume this because I assume that the
node-set data structure of a reasonable implementation would be something
like {root of tree, context pos, context size, list of nodes, other data}.
In other words, I assume that you don't have to duplicate the parse tree to
create a new node-set, and I assume that given a node, you can use all of
the axes defined in XPath (e.g. go to ancestors) even if the ancestors
aren't in the node-set.  If these are false assumptions, then we may have to
revert to the more costly alternatives.

D) Joseph, Gregor, Kent: Comment issue will cause confusion, and people will
wonder whether to include them.  If an app wants them, they can write an
XPath to keep them.

John: Firstly, the fact that we require the non-comment and recommend the
commented version should make it pretty clear which should be used most of
the time.  Secondly, I had real trouble with comments because it turns out
that you can't just do an XPath to include them.

The reasoning went as follows:

When we have a Reference to an external resource, the result is an octet
stream (including comments).  For a same-document reference, if we strip
comments, then they can never be recovered by an XPath transform AND it
makes life really hard on those who just want to self-reference the document
and do minimal c14n (suddenly they have to strip comments).  Therefore, same
document references should retain comments.

An XPath transform receives either a node-set or an octet stream.  If a
node-set, the comments are still in it (unless stripped out by a prior XPath
transform).  If input is an octet stream, then XPath creates node-set
including comments, so again comments are retained unless the XPath
expression in the transform omits them.  However, the output is a node-set,
not an octet stream.  So, how do you get an octet stream that includes
comments?  Well, you have to canonicalize the node-set.  The problem is that
most people seem hellbent on having c14n exclude comments by default. Hence,
we need a canonicalizer that does not strip the comments.  Since we have a
c14n algorithm that can easily be told whether or not to get rid of
comments, it seems easy to create a second transform for this purpose.

I would be interested in being told exactly where the document gets more
complicated as a result of this change.  I think that more is being said
about how we derive the data to be signed, but that was the purpose of
rewriting the processing model.  However, the with or without comments
problem does not occupy much space in the changes.  The complexity comes
from actually solving as opposed to repeatedly failing to solve the
enveloped signature problem.

E) Gregor, Kent:  Why add all of the XPointer complexity?  Specifically, why
do a location-set when we don't support ranges and reduce it down to a
node-set, why the distinction between full versus other xpointers w.r.t.
comments, and why those two special full Xpointers?

John:  For starters, let's address location-set.  According to the W3C
candidate recommendation known as XPointer, the thing after the # is an
XPointer, not an XPath.  XPointers return a location-set, not a node-set. We
can 'declare' it to be a node-set, but the truth is that we say full support
of XPointer is 'OPTIONAL', not 'FORBIDDEN'.  Thus, it is incumbent on us to
say what should be done with point and range nodes (which are the
only difference between a location-set and a node-set).  Moreover, on the
question of ranges, the fact that there is a question is precisely why we
needed to write down what should be done with them.  We support as much of
ranges as can be supported by a node-set because we convert the range to the
set of nodes that it spans.  I feel that ranges will get used a lot, so
saying nothing about how they fit into our processing model is a failure to
provide enough detail for those who want to implement this OPTIONAL part.

To be honest, when we decided to stick to Xpath and node-set, it looked like
no progress was being made on the XPointer/XLink front.  At the last FTF, I
proposed the idea that we switch to location-set, an XPointer transform, and
switch c14n to canonicalizing location-set.  I still think this is the right
idea, but the WG voted against, so we are stuck with this translation (or
stuck with saying that our spec FORBIDS anything after the # except an ID).

Now, for the question of why some distinctions were made between URI="#ID"
and URI='#xpointer(id("ID"))' as well as the distinction between URI=""
versus URI="#xpointer(//. | //@ | //namespace::*)".  The distinction is that
the full xpointers include the comments in the node-set and the shorter URIs
don't.  Why do this?  Well, as I said above, I feel that the same-document
URI dereference SHOULD result in the retention of comments, which can be
excluded later by the default XML C14N.  However, comments are a real
problem because there are a lot of tools out there that toss the comments.
So, if I'd said that URI="" and URI="#ID" retain the comments, then some of
the WG would likely have written in to say that we can't REQUIRE retention
of comments :).

So, the write-up currently reflects the fact that support for comment
retention is RECOMMENDED but not REQUIRED.  If we omit the full xpointers
and let URI="" and URI="#ID" retain comments, then some implementations
would be violating the processing rules by not supporting the comments.
However, as far as I can tell, the situation would clean itself up before
they got to the DigestMethod, so their reference validation would still
work.  However, it puts those who omit comment support into 'hack' status,
and I did not feel I could do that-- the WG needs to decide to do that.

Finally, note that whether or not this gets changed, we still need the C14N
with Comments for those who want the comments signed.

============================================================================
======

Hopefully, it is now clear why it took a whole day to make these
modifications.  There were a lot of picky little issues and scenarios to
account for.

John Boyer
Development Team Leader,
Distributed Processing and XML
PureEdge Solutions Inc.
Creating Binding E-Commerce
v: 250-479-8334, ext. 143  f: 250-479-3772
1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>



Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2000 12:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:10 GMT