- 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