- From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:03:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Canonicalization can be hard even when things are simple, as in LISP or ASN.1 encoding. With XML, it is very hard and different applications can easily need different canonicalizations. It may be that the current W3C XML Canonicalizations have not bee fully adapted to Schema and to the sort of application they are talking about, where messages are shredded to their data elements, stored in a database, and those data element are later retrieved and used to reconsitute messages. I've writte code that does just that sort of thing for ASN.1 SET messages so I know what they are talking about. However, the reasons from not canonicalization namespaces prefixes are explained in Canonical XML. If you are talking about an application which will NEVER encouter those problems, then it would be nicer to canonicalize prefixes. But a growing number of W3C Recommendations encourage absolute prefix names inside attribute and element values and the use of such Recommmendations in messages signed with canonicalized prefixes will be insecure. (Actually, it can be made secure for a restricted subset of messages that use only such Recommendations as are explicitly understood by and provided for in the Canonicalization but will be insecure as soon as a new such Recommendation comes along or the application itself makes use of prefixes embedded in data that the Canonicalization does not explicitly understand.) There point about "just an attribute node" might be due a warning but there is no reason people should not be able to sign so as to omit namespace declarations if they want. There are lots of ways you can do something where you either shoot yourself in the foot or get the exact (perahps unusual) effect you want, depending on your application. Whether the things they have to say about the W3C Canonicalizations are "limitations" or "necessities" depends on your application. Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Rich Salz wrote: > Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:26:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> > To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> > Cc: "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> > Subject: Re: New specs: Exclusive C14N REC; and XPath Filter2 CR > Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:26:01 -0400 (EDT) > Resent-From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > > > Does anyone here have comments on the UDDI C14N spec? > http://www.uddi.org/pubs/SchemaCentricCanonicalization-20020710.htm > in particular, section 1.1 comments on the limitations of the current > standards. > /r$ > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 00:03:34 UTC