[1]W3C   [2]XML Encryption WG

      [1] http://www.w3.org/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Overview.html

  2001-May-15
  Chair: Joseph Reagle
  Note Taker: Joseph Reagle [3]text]

      [3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/010514-tele.html,text

Participants

     * Joseph Reagle, W3C
     * Blair Dillaway, Microsoft
     * Frederick Hirsch, Zolera
     * Katherine Betz, IBM
     * Eric E. Cohen, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
     * Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
     * Mark Scherling, RSA
     * John Velissarios, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
     * Ed Simon,
     * "Rags" Srinivas
     * Cicy Guiney(?), Baltimore
     * Dan Toth, Ford
     * Mimi Tran, Verisign
     * Amir Herzberg, NewGenPay
     * David Stern, Intel
     * David Solo, Citigroup

News

     * Reagle: will post logistics of July 20th FTF later today.
       There's the possibility of a XKMS Workshop on July 19th, but the
       deadline for making that announcement is this Thursday, so if
       everything isn't ready by then, a later date will be considered.

Status of documents

     * Plans: First Spec Working Draft mid-June; also a Requirements
       Last Call at the same time. Might be able to publish
       [4]Decryption Transform for XML Signature then as well.

      [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/att-0005/01-dt-note.html

Reviewing [5]Previous Items

      [5] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/010319-tele.html

    1. Imamura: [6]Does this mean the KeyRetrievalMethod element must
       not occur within the KeyInfo element of an EncryptedKey element?
          + Dillaway will send tweaked text to generalize to the list.
       [7]Dillaway proposed text, [8]Reagle included it in the latest
       proposal.
    2. Eastlake: draft a more complete algorithm section including
       algorithm profiles and IV checksum cipher data values.
       Done: first draft accomplished, WG should comment.
    3. Maruyama: update the Encryption/Signature Transform. Update
       Security Considerations, add a scenario or two (and maybe borrow
       "enc:DataRef" instead of using "EncryptedReference").
       Done: [9]Decryption Transform for XML Signature, WG should
       comment.
    4. Maruyama: an email exploring the question of our processing
       model and the relationship between DOM, Infoset, and
       serialization and the issue related to using current parsers to
       get a pointer to a byte where element starting "<" is.
       Done: Takeshi reports he believes we should maintain the octet
       processing model, though it may make DOM/Infoset based
       implementations more tricky.
       Dillaway: also believes this is the right approach.

      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Apr/0011.html
      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/0002.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/0008.html
      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/att-0005/01-dt-note.html

Requirements

     * [10]Support for signing plaintext and ciphertext via
       <HashOfRandomized> .
       Herzberg: how to address the signing of a message over which
       portions of which will be subsequently encrypted (both signature
       and encryption are by the author). This is a follow-up to
       earlier threads on security of encrypted&signed text, where the
       signature should not leak information about the plaintext now
       purposefully obscured by the encryption.
       Reagle: Let's continue this discussion on the list (and also
       look at [11]Decryption Transform for XML Signature.)
     * [12]Kudos and Comments on XML Encryption Requirements working
       draft (Miller)
       Action Reagle: respond.

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/0000.html
     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001May/att-0005/01-dt-note.html
     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Apr/0028.html

Draft

     * Can we move away from KeyRetrievalMethod towards RetrievalMethod
       with a particular type? (Not much more discussion on the list,
       let's decide one way or the other.)
       Action: Reagle check with Schaad, otherwise no opposition.
     * Imamura: [13]Does CipherData include CryptoBinary or a set of
       Transforms? Reagle: We probably need a new element, what should
       we call it?
          + Need some new structure, two candidates include
              1. Reagle: Two children of CipherData: Reference and
                 Value.
              2. Eastlake: Two alternatives to replace CipherData:
                 Cipher(Data|Value) and CipherReference
       Reagle: I created a CipherReference and CipherValue as children
       of CipherData for expositional convenience.
       Dillaway and Simon support this, Don still prefers option 2 (not
       needing the extra level of nesting) but it isn't a show-stopper
       issue.
     * NameKey: needs a better name. Candidates include
       "FriendlyKeyName" (discussed on last call), "CarriedKeyName"
       (now proposed by Reagle), or "NamedKeySelection" or "KeyIndex"
       (proposed by Hirsch).
       Not much more discussion on the list, let's decide one way or
       the other: CarriedKeyName.
     * [14]Farrell: Is whitespace in KeyName significant? Simon: strip
       the trailing and beginning white space, but otherwise you should
       be careful.
       Reagle: Isn't this a dsig issue, should we specify processing
       behavior for elements in the dsig namespace?
       Action Eastlake: will post message to xmldsig list.
     * Dillaway: distinction between Element and children not really
       necessary. Trying to simplify, not a strong proposal. Reagle,
       investigate, option of renaming itself.

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Apr/0016.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Apr/0020.html

   Misc.
     * Next call on June 11.
     * Reagle will be in Europe from May 22 -May 29th for [15]XML 2001
       Europe. dsig/xenc [16]presentation on Friday.
     * Simon will be giving a [17]tutorial earlier in the week.

     [15] http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/
     [16] http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/businessimp.htm
     [17] http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/tutorialsmon.htm