W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Action-69: "Ed Simon to Draft warning similar to that of section 7.2 of RFC 2253"

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:48:20 -0400
To: <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c7d2f3$58e6b8f0$6800a8c0@XMLSEC004>

Sean and Frederick,

Yes, this was intended for the Best Practices document.

That is interesting about PrintableString vs. UTF8String because the part in
quotation marks at the end is cut and pasted from RFC 4514. 

If others agree with your suggestion about using the OID form for
non-standard attribute names, we should definitely add that and include an
example. Would you be able to provide that example?

Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Principal, XMLsec Inc. 
(613) 726-9645 

Interested in XML, Web Services, or Security? Visit "http://www.xmlsec.com".

New! "Privacy Protection for E-Services" published by Idea Group (ISBN:
1-59140-914-4 for hard cover, 1-59140-915-2 for soft cover). 
Includes a chapter, by Ed Simon, on "Protecting Privacy Using XML, XACML,
and SAML".
See the Table of Contents here: "http://tinyurl.com/rukr4".

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM [mailto:Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM] 
Sent: July 30, 2007 17:35
To: Ed Simon
Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action-69: "Ed Simon to Draft warning similar to that of
section 7.2 of RFC 2253"

Ed Simon wrote:
> With regard to Action-69 ("Ed Simon to Draft warning similar to that 
> of section 7.2 of RFC 2253"), I propose the following text (based on 
> 4514 rather than RFC 2253):
>> >>
> The XML Signature specification describes distinguished name encoding 
> rules designed to comply with RFC 4514 and be robust within XML 
> processing. When a distinguished name is used to identify a key, and 
> not just to provide a human-readable string, as in Section 4 of the 
> XML Signature specification which describes the <X509Data> element, it 
> is important that applications incorporate the directions given in 
> Section
> 5.2 of RFC 4514.
> Section 5.2 of RFC 4514 warns that when reversibility of the 
> distinguished name string representation back to its initial BER or 
> DER form is required (as would commonly be the case in XML Signature 
> validation), then attribute values which are not of type 
> PrintableString "SHOULD use the hexadecimal form prefixed by the number
sign ('#'
> U+0023) as described in the first paragraph of Section 2.4 (of RFC 4514)".
> <<<
> Comments?

I agree with Frederick that we agreed to put this in the best practices doc.

I would also suggest changing the text above to PrintableString or
UTF8String. RFC 3280 requires all certificates issued after December 31,
2003 MUST use UTF8String for DNs (except for a couple of special cases)
- see section

Also, I would suggest also adding a warning that implementations should use
the OID form of attribute keywords if they are not one of the 9 standard
short names listed in section 3 of RFC 4514. This can also affect

Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 21:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:40 UTC