Re: Comment for the latest Working Draft of Encryption 1.1

Dear Frederick,

We strongly appreciated your discussing again for Camellia cipher.
Although we can understand your resolution, we greatly expected to add
Camellia cipher to XML Encryption 1.1 because there are XML encryption
products loading Camellia, e.g., XSECT Library of IAIK-Java.

Anyway, we wish Camellia to be implemented in XML Encryption library
as well as AES.
If so in the future, we hope to discuss the adoption of Camellia into
XML Encryption again.

Best regards,
Satoru


(2010/04/07 8:42), Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> Satoru
>
> The XML Security WG discussed your original request to add the Camelia
> cipher to XML Encryption 1.1 on 16 June 2009 [1] after you raised it
> last year [2]. At that time the Working Group (WG) decided not to add
> this additional algorithm to the XML Encryption 1.1 specification, but
> to include it in the XML Security Algorithms Cross Reference [3]. We
> documented the decision to add it to the cross-reference but did not
> formally make a resolution to not add it to XML Encryption 1.1 At the 30
> March 2010 teleconference the WG re-affirmed its previous decision and
> made a formal resolution not to add Camelia to XML Encryption 1.1, to
> document the decision for the record [4].
>
> The reason the WG decided not to include this algorithm in the XML
> Encryption 1.1 specification itself has not changed. The rationale is
> that the XML Encryption 1.1 specification itself should include a
> minimum set of algorithm definitions and rely on extension points to
> allow additional algorithms. There are two reasons for this. First,
> algorithms included in the specification should have wide implementation
> support as evidenced by interop testing performed during the development
> of the specification, and adding additional algorithms has a WG cost in
> terms of formally testing interoperability. Secondly, including
> additional algorithms imposes additional costs and requirements on
> developers.
>
> However, since XML Encryption 1.1 is extensible, adoption of Camelia is
> possible with it. To enable this and facilitate the discovery of
> information about algorithms the WG has created the XML Security
> Algorithms Cross Reference and has included Camelia in it.
>
> Unless we have new arguments for adding this algorithm suite to the XML
> Encryption 1.1 we shall consider this issue closed (ISSUE-195 and
> ISSUE-134).
>
> Thank you.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair XML Security WG
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-xmlsec-minutes.html#item09
>
> [2] ISSUE-134 , http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/134
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmlsec-algorithms-20100316/
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-xmlsec-minutes.html
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:20 AM, ext Satoru Kanno wrote:
>
>> Hi, Folks
>>
>> We have a comment for the latest Working Draft of Encryption 1.1.
>>
>> We strongly think that the Camellia cipher should be adopted
>> by not only Cross-Reference but also XML Encryption 1.1.
>> Because the Camellia cipher is described in RFC4051, which is Standard
>> track RFC.
>>
>> Does this have any problems?
>>
>> Of course, current Cross-Reference document already includes the
>> Camellia cipher.
>>
>> For your information, Camellia has been already adopted in TLS,
>> IPsec, S/MIME, OpenPGPG, Kerberos (plans), and other standards.
>> In addition, as open source software, Camellia is loaded to OpenSSL,
>> Firefox, Linux, FreeBSD, MIT Kerberos KRB5 (scheduled), and so on.
>> For more information on Camellia cipher, please see at;
>> http://info.isl.ntt.co.jp/crypt/eng/camellia/index.html
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Satoru Kanno
>>
>> Security Business Unit
>> Mobile and Security Solution Business Group
>> NTT Software Corporation
>>
>> e-mail: kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Satoru Kanno

Security Business Unit
Mobile and Security Solution Business Group
NTT Software Corporation

e-mail: kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 09:12:21 UTC