- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:36:27 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: "XML Signature" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Monday 21 October 2002 02:39 pm, John Boyer wrote: > If some data is important to the interpretation of a document, a copy of > it must be included within the document to prevent these volatile URIs > from breaking signatures unexpectedly. Yes, folks have bounced this idea around from time-to-time under the guise of "secure caching/packaging." At a given point in time, I have a trusted authority (e.g., myself, the domain name owner, or a trusted 3rd party) sign {dereferenced URI, timestamp, and resulting resource of a dereference I'm dependent on}. I then include a reference to that statement in my signature. So even if the maintainer of the document changes the object returned, it's clear what I was using. However, this requires me to also tweak my application behaviour to be able to do a correspondense between the URI in the stuff being signed, and it's dereferenced form in the cache/package. > That being said, if there were a reference-based signature over the XML > Signature Recommendation, then the least attractive alternative (#2, Let > it be) would be the only alternative. Well, that gives you a 404 and signature breakage. > I would think that such a > signature would be less likely to break if the errata were changed than > if the FIPS document were reinstated with a deprecation message. So, the > most desirable solution (#1, Reinstate with obsolete message) is the > worst in terms of signatures-- fate, it seems, is not without a sense of > irony. This depends on the revision policy of the dependency author. As I said in my previous email, you can't implement things that don't exist. So FIPS should be reinstated *as it was*. If they need to provide an update they could include a new resource with the diffs and new apps can also sign that. (If that is unlikely to change, you can sign a specific/dated version. If it's still likely to change but you trust that
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 16:36:56 UTC