W3C

Disposition of comments for the XML Security Working Group

Single page view

In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.

In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.

CommentorCommentWorking Group decisionCommentor reply
LC-2561 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> (archived comment)
I have to revisit this issue, since a test document gh-example.xml (in
the directory "xml encryption test files")
has

<ds:KeyInfo>
<dsig11:ECKeyValue>
<dsig11:NamedCurve URI="urn:oid:1.2.840.10045.3.1.7"/>
<dsig11:PublicKey>DEADBEEF</dsig11:PublicKey>
</dsig11:ECKeyValue>
</ds:KeyInfo>

To validate this ECKeyValue element, we need the schema for Signature 1.1.

But this example document might be simply incorrect. I see other errors
such as

Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2009/xmlenc11#GenericHybridCipher"

which is not a valid algorithm identifer. Is my copy obsolete?

Regards,
Makoto

2011/8/19 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>:
> Agreed.  Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> 2011/8/17  <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>:
>>
>>  Dear MURATA Makoto ,
>>
>> The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
>> the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Encryption Syntax and Processing
>> Version 1.1 published on 13 May 2010. Thank you for having taken the time
>> to review the document and to send us comments!
>>
>> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>>
>> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
>> public-xmlsec@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 22 August 2011. In
>> case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for
>> or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot
>> be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
>> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this
>> document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> For the XML Security Working Group,
>> Thomas Roessler
>> W3C Staff Contact
>>
>>  1.
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CALvn5EAQnAT-i4xB0HV+29ta0fp=ijcg77BfofM3o1x44U0jQg@mail.gmail.com
>>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmlenc-core1-20100513/
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>> Your comment on 9.1 XSD Schema XML Encryption Core Schema Instance
>> xenc-sc...:
>>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not import xmldsig11-schema.xsd but
>>> rather import xmldsigschema.xsd.  However, XML Encryption 1.1
>>> normatively references to XML Signature 1.1 rather than 1.0.
>>> Which is correct?
>>
>>
>> Working Group Resolution (LC-2544):
>> The working group decided to not make any change here as
>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not require any definitions from
>> xmldsig-11-schema.xsd. All that is required is ds:DigestMethod from
>> xmldsigschmema.xsd; so the current inclusion is correct and does not
>> include unnecessary material.
>>
>> Thus the schema import is correct as is the normative reference to XML
>> SIgnature 1.1 (e.g. to pick up normative changes that are not necessarily
>> reflected by schema changes)
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>
File corrected, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Sep/0001.html

Updated file available at http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/generic-hybrid-ciphers/gh-example.xml

No change was required to the specification itself.
tocheck

Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: index.html,v 1.1 2017/08/11 06:45:15 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org