[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: TRP comments by Shimanura-san that MAY apply to TP
Re TRP line 1735, I don't understand the comment "Use of prefix does not follow the W3C XML Signature's DTD." Our usage of the "ds:" prefix looks okay to me. The comments about outdated attribute values are correct, in that the XMLDSIG candidate recommendation of 31-October 200 provides more recent values. We should update our values accordingly. Re TRP lines 1692 and 1699, the specifics may change again in the subsequent DSIG specs -- proposed recommendation(s) and recommendation. We should specifically address that possibility in the text. The candidate recommendation period expires in a couple weeks, so perhaps we'll the proposed recommendation before Vienna? Re line 1737, Canonical XML has advanced to "recommendation" status -- version 1.0 dated 15 March 2001 -- so we can expect the suggested change (which refelcts the candidate recommendation) to be superseded shortly. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:14 AM > To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: TRP comments by Shimanura-san that MAY apply to TP > Importance: High > > > Someone please check to see if the appended set of TRP > comments apply to > the TP spec. Please indicate that you are looking into it > and when you > will provide an answer. If any changes are needed, it would > be best if we > put them in before submitting the spec for the next round of > QR and Public > Review. > > NOTE: Any changes due to these comments have to be reflected > in some or > all of the XSD, DTD, and CPP and CPA samples unless they are > in areas of > the XMLDSIG definition that we haven't included in detail. > > (Chris?) Should the messageOrderSemantics attribute be added to the > ReliableMessaging element or is it intended to be specified > on a message by > message basis? > > (Chris, Dale, or Tony?) Shimamura-san is requesting some > changes to the > digital signature elements in the message service > specification to update > it to the current level of XMLDSIG. Are his proposals > correct? Do any of > these changes apply to the TP spec, given the level of detail in our > current signture elements? Please check both under > ds:Signature and under > ProcessSpecification (ds:Reference). > > At a glance, I see: > > Comment to line 1735 of TRP spec is a possible problem for > us regarding > the ds: prefix and namespace definition. Should we delete the ds: > prefix anywhere? everywhere? I believe that the comment > applies only to > the namespace definition since the TRP spec has the > ds:prefix everywhere > else. > > Comment to line 1692 apparently applies to us (algorithm > attribute value > under SignatureMethod) > > Comment to line 1699 apparently applies to us (correction > to value of > Type attribute) > > Comment to line 1737 apparently applies to us. Under > ds:Signature, we > do not spell out the full URL of the canonicalization > method (algorithm > attribute). > > Comment to line 1737: Under ProcessSpecification, the > algorithm we show > in the XML example agrees with the one in the comment > below except that > we name the attribute ds:Algorithm while the comment below > shows it as > Algorithm (this probably relates to the comment to line > 1735 above). > Also, under ProcessSpecification, we do not spell out the > algorithm at > all in the text but just refer to [XMLC14N]. Since the algorithm is > shown in the sample, we probably should add a brief sentence or > paragraph on it. > > > ************************************************************** > *********************** > > 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 > ************************************************************** > *********************** > ---------------------- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM > on 04/11/2001 > 09:26 AM --------------------------- > > SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com> on 04/11/2001 > 03:44:18 AM > > To: ian.c.jones@bt.com > cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: Re: Outstanding Issues/Comments list > > > > Mr. Ian Jones, > > Thank you for creating the issue list. However it lacks a issue about > messageOrderSemantics I pointed out. And also I have obtained XML > Signature related issues from security experts. Can I ask you to add > attached comments to the list? > > ---------------------------------- > Comments on Message Service v0.98b > ---------------------------------- > Minor Technical > Line 549-551 says: > If messageOrderSemantics is set to Guaranteed, the To Party MSH > MAY correct invalid order of messages using the value of > ~~~ > SequenceNumber in the conversation specified by the > ConversationId. > Comments: > We decided that "When OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified and > messageOrderSemantics is set to "Guaranteed", > SequenceNumber MUST be > present. In this case, receiving MSH MUST guarantee > message order." > The line 549-551 does not follow our decision. > Suggestions: > Change the word "MAY" in line 549 to "MUST". > Reference: > see discussion < > http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200103/msg00146.html>. > > > Minor Technical > Line 569-570 says: > The SequenceNumber element MUST appear only when deliverySemantics > is OnceAndOnlyOnce. ... > Comments: > This description is still not clear. > Suggestions: > Change the description into following to follow our > decision exactly. > When deliverySemantics is OnceAndOnlyOnce and > messageOrderSemantics is Guarantee, the SequenceNumber element > MUST appear. When deliverySemantics is OnceAndOnlyOnce and > messageOrderSemantics is NotGuarantee, The SequenceNumber > element MAY appear. In any other case, this element MUST NOT > appear. > Reference: > see discussion < > http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200103/msg00104.html>. > > > Minor Technical > Line 1735 says: > <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmlds#"> > Comments: > Use of prefix does not follow the W3C XML Signature's DTD. > Suggestions: > Remove the prefix "ds" in description on page 52-53, and define > name space as following in line 1735: > <Signature xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> > > > Minor Technical > Line 1692-1694 says: > The ds:SignatureMethod element SHALL be present and SHALL have an > Algorithm attribute. The RECOMMENDED value for the Algorithm > attribute is: > http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#sha1 > Comments: > The specified URI > <http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#sha1> is older > algorithm. The W3C XML Signature spec uses following Algorithm: > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1> > (By the way, the sample on page 54 uses > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1>). > Suggestions: > Change <http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#sha1> in line 1694 into > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1>. > > > Minor Technical > Line 1699-1701 says: > ... The ds:Reference element for the ebXML Header document MAY > include a Type attribute that has a value > "http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#Object" in accordance with > [XMLDSIG]. ... > Comments: > The specified URI > <http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#Object> is older > definition. Latest definition is: > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#Object> > Suggestions: > Change <http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#Object> in > line 1701 into > <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#Object>. > > > Minor Technical > Line 1737 says: > <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm=" > http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20001011"/> > Comments: > The specified URI is older algorithm. Latest algorithm is: > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026> > Suggestions: > Change <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20001011> > in line 1737 > into <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026>. > ---------------------------------- > > > Regards, > > -- > SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com> > TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241) FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783) > Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, > FUJITSU LIMITED > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-tp-request@lists.ebxml.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC