- From: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:38:20 -0500
- To: xml-encryption@w3.org
- Message-ID: <A0E1DEC54ED42F4884DD9EEA00ACE37106D097@sottmxs08.entrust.com>
Not only would I like to see XML Encryption support the encryption of entire XML documents but I would like to see it support encryption of arbitrary data not necessarily connected with an XML instance. Given that XML signing supports these signing of arbitrary data and whole XML instances, I think it only makes sense that XML Encryption be similarly flexible. Imagine an XML-centric system that wants to encrypt various pieces of data (GIFs, MPEGs, whole XML instances, XML elements, the content of specific XML elements, etc.). Wouldn't it be absurd if the designers of the system were able to use XML Signatures for all these items, but only able to use XML Encryption for some data, and had to revert to PKCS#7 for those types of data XML Encryption does not support. The good news is that I think the current spec already has the basis for meeting these requirements; here's an example of how I see it being used to encrypt the types of data just discussed: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <root xmlns=".../mycompany/secretlab/directions"> ... <!-- Encrypted GIF converted to base64 and put inline --> <EncryptedData xmlns=".../xml/encryption" Type="image/gif"> <CipherText>AbC...dEf</CipherText> </EncryptedData> ... <!-- Encrypted GIF whose encrypted bytes reside externally --> <EncryptedData xmlns=".../xml/encryption" Type="image/gif"> <CipherText URI="http://www.example.com/secretlab/map_gif.enc"/> </EncryptedData> ... <!-- Encrypted whole XML document converted to base64 and put inline --> <EncryptedData xmlns=".../xml/encryption" Type="text/xml"> <CipherText>GhI...jKl</CipherText> </EncryptedData> ... <!-- Encrypted whole XML document whose encrypted bytes reside externally --> <EncryptedData xmlns=".../xml/encryption" Type="text/xml"> <CipherText URI="http://www.example.com/secretlab/directions_xml.enc"/> </EncryptedData> ... </root> Ed -----Original Message----- From: Hiroshi Maruyama [mailto:MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 7:27 PM To: xml-encryption@w3.org Subject: RE: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal? From: Hiroshi Maruyama on 2000/12/22 09:19 To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com> cc: From: Hiroshi Maruyama/Japan/IBM@IBMJP Subject: RE: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal? (Document link: Hiroshi Maruyama) In Section 4.2, Step 4 says "This XML fragment is converted into the character encoding of the surrounding document and then replaces the data in the document ..." This means, if the document start with a prolog <?xml version="1.0" encoding="Shift_JIS"?> <EncryptedData> ... </EncryptedData> the decrypted octet string (in UTF-8) is converted into Shift_JIS first. I think a real question is whether we allow Nodes outside of the root element (e.g., <!DOCTYPE> declaration) to be encrypted. The current spec does not, and I think it is reasonable, because you can always treat an entire document as an external octet string. Hiroshi -- Hiroshi Maruyama Manager, Internet Technology, Tokyo Research Laboratory +81-46-215-4576 maruyama@jp.ibm.com From: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>@w3.org on 2000/12/22 04:03 Please respond to Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com> Sent by: xml-encryption-request@w3.org To: "'xml-encryption@w3.org'" <xml-encryption@w3.org> cc: Subject: RE: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal? It is true that well-formed documents require a prologue but it is also true that the prologue may be empty. In other words, <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?> <root> <a><b> </root> is well-formed but so is <root> <a><b> </root> In both cases, if encrypting the entire XML instance, one would end up with <EncryptedData Type="Document" xmlns=".../xml/encryption"> ... </EncryptedData> which is also a well-formed document which has an empty prologue and is therefore, by default, UTF-8 and version 1.0. A question which remains to be answered is whether this model stands the test of various character encodings. I believe Hiroshi and Takeshi feel that various character encodings could cause problems (Hiroshi and Takeshi, please correct me if I misunderstand). As for me, I expect that there could be a problem here, but I don't want to introduce a requirement for canonicalization unless I see proof of it. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Thane Plambeck [mailto:tplambeck@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:57 PM To: 'xml-encryption@w3.org' Subject: FW: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal? In section 5.7 of this doc (encrypting an entire XML document) perhaps the prologue should not be encrypted? At least we perserve well-formedness then for entire documents. I realize that encrypting just the root element and not the prologue is already covered by the case of encrypting an entire element. So I guess the question is, should XML Encryption really say anything about encrypting entire documents, including the prologue? If it does then we are left with the consequence of XML Document encryption leaving us with non-well formed XML, which requires a prologue. Thane Thane Plambeck tplambeck@verisign.com http://www.verisign.com 650 429 5247 direct, Mt View Office 650 321 4884 home office 650 323 4928 home office fax -----Original Message----- From: Blair Dillaway [mailto:blaird@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:41 PM To: xml-encryption@w3.org Cc: Hiroshi Maruyama; Brian LaMacchia; Barb Fox; 'Ed Simon'; 'Takeshi Imamura'; jimsch@nwlink.com Subject: Proposal for XML Encryption Syntax and Processing We respectfully submit the attached specification as a suggested starting point for the XML Encryption Working Group effort. This work builds on earlier papers and on-going discussions. We look forward to comments and continuing discussions to resolve the open issues identified in this document. Regards, Blair Dillaway, Barbara Fox, Takeshi Imamura, Brian LaMacchia, Hiroshi Maruyama, Jim Schaad, Ed Simon
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 08:40:28 UTC