Re: comments on cppml,v0.1.dtd

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Is the amount of detail in the certificate proposal below actually needed
in the CPA or CPP?  The 0.0 draft merely contains the URL of the
certificate.  Could the information shown below be obtained by actually
going to the certificate via the URL?  Is the intent that the actual
certificate not be seen by another party before there is an agreement or
note be seen at all?

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>@east.sun.com on 12/12/2000
12:53:19 PM

Sent by:  Chris.Ferris@east.sun.com


To:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>,
      "ebxml-ta-security@lists.ebxml.org"
      <ebxml-ta-security@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  comments on cppml,v0.1.dtd



All,

I would like to hear some opinions on the following comment
I have regarding the initial draft DTD for our CPP/CPA.

The original tpaML,v1.0.6 offered a Certificate
element which was composed of (basically) the same
elements as have been defined thus far for our CPP.
I only reorganized things such that a set of Certificates
could be organized/collected within a Party element (formerly
Participants/Member).

The issue/comment that I have is that the certificate
contains no means which I can determine to actually
identify the certificate itself. Would we be better
served to leverage the work of the (now CR) XMLDSig WG
and use the KeyInfo element they have defined?

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmldsig-core-20001031/#sec-KeyInfo

e.g.
<KeyInfo>
  <X509Data> <!-- two pointers to certificate-A -->
    <X509IssuerSerial>
      <X509IssuerName>CN=TAMURA Kent, OU=TRL, O=IBM,
                  L=Yamato-shi, ST=Kanagawa, C=JP</X509IssuerName>
      <X509SerialNumber>12345678</X509SerialNumber>
    </X509IssuerSerial>
    <X509SKI>31d97bd7</X509SKI>
  </X509Data>
  <X509Data> <!-- single pointer to certificate-B -->
      <X509SubjectName>Subject of Certificate B</X509SubjectName>
  </X509Data>
  <X509Data><!-- certificate chain -->
              <!--Signer cert, issuer CN=arbolCA,OU=FVT,O=IBM,C=US, serial
4-->
    <X509Certificate>MIICXTCCA..</X509Certificate>
    <!-- Intermediate cert subject CN=arbolCA,OU=FVTO=IBM,C=US
                   issuer,CN=tootiseCA,OU=FVT,O=Bridgepoint,C=US -->
    <X509Certificate>MIICPzCCA...</X509Certificate>
    <!-- Root cert subject CN=tootiseCA,OU=FVT,O=Bridgepoint,C=US -->
    <X509Certificate>MIICSTCCA...</X509Certificate>
  </X509Data>
</KeyInfo>

It would seem to me that this would be a logical choice
for us as it would (potentially) ease implementation
use of this particular feature, especially once XMLDSig becomes
more commonly used.

I see no real benefit at this stage for ebXML to define
its own XML vocabulary for describing a certificate.

Comments?

Thanks!

Chris