- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 10:25:33 -0500
- To: <hirsch@zolera.com>
- cc: <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Hi, I believe XPath should add the namespace declaration to all descendent elements. This behaviour, which destroys a good part of the information about where namespace declarations were in the original input, is one reason for the complexity of canonicalization... Donald From: "Frederick Hirsch" <hirsch@zolera.com> Reply-To: <hirsch@zolera.com> To: <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com> Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:28:56 -0500 Message-ID: <HNEILHLKDJAILJJBNELPGEIMCGAA.hirsch@zolera.com> >Takeshi, > >I was thinking of the document which will have a portion signed, but now I'm >thinking this is an application issue, not a Transform issue. > >The reason I was thinking this was due to the exclusive canonicalization >issues, and what happens when a portion of XML is signed and then possibly >removed from the document along with the signature, as might occur with XML >protocol applications. > >For example if foo:b is to be signed, then later removed from the document >along with the signature: > ><a xmlns:foo="http://www.foo.org/"> > <foo:b> > <EncyptedData>...</EncryptedData> > </foo:b> ></a> > >I understand that the InfoSet includes the namespace declarations >appropriate to b, so the question is when and how to correctly serialize - >it could be the responsibility of the application when it removes the b >element during processing. That is what makes sense to me, so there is no >need to change the recommendation for this > >Earlier I was thinking this had to happen during signing (making the >explicit namespace declaration in b). XPath will not necessarily add the >namespace declaration to the b element (at least the processor I tried does >not), so I believe canonicalization would be needed to force the explicit >namespace declaration at b: > > <foo:b xmlns:foo="http://www.foo.org/"> > <EncyptedData>...</EncryptedData> > </foo:b> > >So the transforms would be canonicalize, Xpath and Decryption transform, in >that order. > >But if it is up to the application after the signature has been created, >then it is not a transform issue. > >--- >Frederick Hirsch >Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com/ >Information Integrity, XML Security
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2001 10:28:07 UTC