- From: Phillip hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:34:45 -0700
- To: <dee3@us.ibm.com>, "Signed-XML Workshop" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dsig@socratic.org>
>### The main thing with which there was no disent was that >cannonicalization is necessary, for the reasons cited in the >minutes. There was criticism by ekr (Eric Riscola) that for >digital signing the recursive nature of the DOM HASH proposal >is not needed (as it would be for efficient tree comparison) >and is slower than just feeding a similarly defined ordered >byte stream for the entire structure to be signed into a >single hash function. There may be agreement that IN SOME APPLICATIONS the ABILITY TO canonicalize is a requirement. There is intransigent objection to any requirement that EVERY signed document be canonicalized. I know that various people have said 'of course that will be an option', however I now see the requirement that the functionality be available turning into a requirement the functionality be employed. The reason is that I just do not believe that semantically neutral transformations are possible in practice. However good the spec looked I would distrust the implementations. Moreover I don't believe that there is sufficient knowledge to construct a formal proof of correctness that demonstrates that an XML cannonicalisation process is semantically neutral. XML is not defined using a formal method which is one obstacle, even if it were however XML is not a syntax but a meta-syntax, the only proofs I have seen in that domain which were convincing involved category theory. The requirement that electronic commerce systems be formally verified is quite realistic. Proofs relating to substantially larger systems exist. I find the idea that digital signatures will be reliably used in any environment which does not preserve the integrity of messages considerably less plausible. That does not mean that I don't expect people to try. I want to sign the bits on the wire. If people want to use broken networks, the spec should provide them with the tools. I do not however agree that those of us with networks which do not mangle messages should be _required_ to perform any transformation which is not fully specified using formal methods and proven to be semantically neutral using formal methods. I would like to see a mechanism for signing the bits on the wire as a phase 1 deliverable and defer canonicalisation until phase 2, I think that the task will prove somewhat more complex than some anticipate. Phill
Received on Monday, 5 April 1999 14:34:46 UTC