By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2009.
This memo defines a number of additional Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) intended to identify cryptographic algorithms for use with the XML Digital Signature and Encryption Specifications. It complements RFC 4051 (Eastlake, D., “Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs),” April 2005.) [RFC4051].
XML Digital Signature and Encryption have been standardized by the W3C and by joint W3C/IETF work. They are currently under further revision by a W3C working group.
All of these specifications use URIs to identify algorithm and keying information types. This document provides URIs and descriptions for algorithms in which there is substantial interest, but which have not been included in either the main documents, or previous reference documents.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].
Algorithms added in this document are given URIs that start with:
The Whirlpool algorithm [ISOIEC10118‑3] (tbd, tbd., “ISO/IEC 10118-3,” Y Z.) takes no explicit parameters. A Whirlpool digest is a 512 bit string. The content of the DigestValue element shall be the base64 [RFC2045] (tbd, tbd., “RFC 2045,” Y Z.) encoding of this string viewed as a 64 octet stream.
As in the definition of the RSA-SHA1 algorithm in [XMLDSIG] (tbd, tbd., “XML Signature Second Edition,” Y Z.), the designator "RSA" means the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 algorithm as defined in PKCS2.1 (tbd, tbd., “PKCS 2.1,” Y Z.) [PKCS2.1]. When identified through the #rsa-whirlpool fragment identifier, Whirlpool is used as the hash algorithm instead. Use of the ASN.1 BER Whirlpool algorithm designator is implied.
@@ give that designator as an explicit octet sequence?
The ECDSA algorithm takes no explicit parameters; the algorithm identifiers defined in this document describe the use of this algorithm with the Whirlpool and RIPEMD160 hash algorithms.
The output of the ECDSA algorithm consists of a pair of integers usually referred by the pair (r, s). The signature value consists of the base64 encoding of the concatenation of two octet-streams that respectively result from the octet-encoding of the values r and s in that order. Integer to octet-stream conversion must be done according to the I2OSP operation defined in the PKCS 2.1 (tbd, tbd., “PKCS 2.1,” Y Z.) [PKCS2.1] specification with the l parameter equal to the size of the output of the digest function in bytes (e.g. 32 for SHA-256).
@@ Not having looked at X9.62, I don't know whether we're underspecifying here. Anybody want to cross-check?
|[RFC4051]||Eastlake, D., “Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs),” RFC 4051, April 2005.|
|[RFC2119]||Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” RFC 2119, March 1997.|
|[RFC2045]||tbd, tbd., “RFC 2045,” Y Z.|
|[ISOIEC10118-3]||tbd, tbd., “ISO/IEC 10118-3,” Y Z.|
|[XMLDSIG]||tbd, tbd., “XML Signature Second Edition,” Y Z.|
|[PKCS2.1]||tbd, tbd., “PKCS 2.1,” Y Z.|
|World Wide Web Consortium|
|2004 Route des Lucioles|
|Sophia Antipolis 06902|
|Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications|
|Phone:||+43 316 873 5547|
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2009).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at firstname.lastname@example.org.