- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:11:56 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Minutes/990820-tele.html
XML Signature
WG
99-July-22
Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Joseph Reagle
Note Taker: Joseph Reagle [ascii]
Participants
*Donald Eastlake 3rd, IBM
*Joseph Reagle, W3C
*David Solo, Citigroup
*Phillip M Hallam-Baker, VeriSign Inc
*John M. Boyer, UWI.com
*Ed Simon , Entrust Technologies Inc.
*Brian Lamachia, Microsoft
*Mark Champine, Iris
*Todd Vincent, GSU
*Peter Norman, FactPoint,
*Bob Relyea, Netscape
Notes:
Reference Documents:
http://www.w3.org/1999/08/xmldsig-requirements-990820.html
Drafts/xmldsig-scenarios-990818.html
Resulting Document:
Review Outstanding Action Items
Requirements Going to Last Call shortly.
FTF details/confirmation.
Canonicalization (should reagle collect and send
comments and start discussion?)
Status of scenarios?
Discussion of Syntax proposal, how to create a first
draft prior to FTF?
Data Model (Reagle should have a data model
proposal by tomorrow)Open: Working Group
Agenda and Open Issues
Core Syntax Proposal
Seem to have convergence in that manifest is merely
one case of some object that you are signing. For
packages and manifests, we define additional
constraints, other XML content is processed
according to c14n, scripts, or XSLT, for encoded
content, it's still XML just CDATA.
Should keyinfo be part of the signature? David: The
goal should be that having it outside gives you the
option of not having to have it part of the signature
(For instance, the key has some ephemeral type of
information not relevant to that signature (like email
addresses in PGP.) Lamachia: that keyinfo might be
carried by the protocol, and known by the application
Removing selections of XML. Should the ability to
preclude sections be a mandatory to implement
feature/requirement of selection/c14n. Peter Norman
is proposing a dsig:element by which it can be
inserted into XML and reference a section but
ignored by the signature c14n algorithm.
Scenarios Document
Everyone should have a look at the latest. Himes
proposed two more (How to sign the binary form of
an encoded attachement, and how to protect against
the collision ID of combined XML in a package.)
Data Model
Reagle will post graph and explaination tonight,
should post resulting syntax tomorrow. Work with
Solo into integrating it into that proposal.
Carry-Over and New Action Items
Winchel: post definitions prior to FTF.
Action: Joseph: collect readings for FTF by end of
next week.
Action: Joseph: add comment on John's request
about exluding things to RD.
Action: Joseph: send fragment identifier as MIME
type to Peter.
Action: Solo: new version of syntax by mid week.
Action: Boyer: put Richard's two points into the
document.
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 1999 18:11:58 UTC