- From: David Solo <david.solo@citicorp.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:44:34 -0400
- To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: "david.solo@citicorp.com" <david.solo@citicorp.com>
Additional thoughts from my notes on the requirements front. Some of these may be in between requirements and design, and aren't in a particular order. Also, they're in the spirit of trying to leverage much of the CMS experience. I think attention to the validation logic is particularly important. (By the way, I know I included the "no criticality" point twice) - Ability to associate attributes with the signature - there should be support for both authenticated attributes (covered by the signature) and unauthenticated attributes (not covered by the signature) - attributes should be treated consistently (i.e. not specifying some in the base signature structure and others in an attribute bucket - put them all in the bucket) - attributes are a type and value combination - some set of standard attributes should be defined, but adding others must be straightforward (list in Brown is a good start) - NO criticality flags - Ability to carry a range of explicitly typed infrastructure credentials including public key certificates, attribute certificates, KM tokens, revocation/status data objects - Ability to specific algorithms independently and to reference the algorithms linked to standard algorithm specifications (e.g. OIDs) - Provide a content structure (manifest) supporting multiple objects, references, entries should include explicit content type information - Specify unambiguous validation rules including: - rules on expansion of link/references (probably none) - explicit hash calculation between content elements and attributes - default minimum semantics and pass/fail criteria (mathematical signature validation). Additional semantics via attached attributes - NO criticality flags - how to handle multiple signatures (valid if all signatures are OK) - Multiple signature may be included and each signature shall be associated with information to identify the signer and/or the cryptographic information required to validate the signature - From an implementation perspective, the ability to leverage existing cryptographic (and infrastructure?) provider primitives is desirable. All for now, Dave
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 1999 17:42:51 UTC