IRC log of xmlsec on 2007-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:48:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xmlsec
12:48:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:48:49 [fjh]
Zakim, this will be xmlsec
12:48:49 [Zakim]
ok, fjh; I see T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM scheduled to start 48 minutes ago
12:49:07 [fjh]
Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG
12:49:14 [fjh]
Chair: Frederick Hirsch
12:49:20 [fjh]
Regrets: Tony Nadalin
12:49:40 [GregB]
Scribe: Gregory Berezowsky
12:49:42 [klanz2]
klanz2 has joined #xmlsec
12:50:18 [klanz2]
klanz2 has joined #xmlsec
12:50:27 [klanz2]
12:51:00 [fjh]
12:51:54 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has now started
12:52:01 [Zakim]
12:52:13 [fjh]
zakim, who is here
12:52:13 [Zakim]
fjh, you need to end that query with '?'
12:52:18 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
12:52:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [NRCC]
12:52:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng
12:52:20 [tlr]
tlr has joined #xmlsec
12:52:21 [rdm]
rdm has joined #xmlsec
12:52:46 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
12:56:51 [Zakim]
13:00:08 [EdSimon]
EdSimon has joined #xmlsec
13:00:08 [GregB]
TOPIC: Reconvene & Administrivia
13:01:08 [GregB]
Sean to scribe this afternoon
13:01:13 [rsalz]
rsalz has joined #xmlsec
13:01:13 [tlr]
zakim, who is here?
13:01:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [NRCC], EdSimon
13:01:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see rsalz, EdSimon, sean, rdm, tlr, klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng
13:01:53 [tlr]
Present+ GregWhitehead
13:01:58 [tlr]
Present+ JuanCarlosCruellas
13:02:01 [tlr]
Present+ KonradLanz
13:02:05 [tlr]
Present+ FrederickHirsch
13:02:10 [tlr]
Present+ RichSalz
13:02:37 [tlr]
Present+ GregBerezowsky
13:02:42 [GregB]
fjh: We should walk through the plenary details to decide on specifics
13:02:52 [tlr]
Present+ RobMiller
13:02:56 [GregB]
fjh: We should walk through open and closed actions
13:03:32 [GregB]
fjh: We should review the summary emails from yesterday's meeting
13:04:26 [klanz2]
13:05:15 [GregB]
fjh: Do we need schema change for the errata?
13:05:45 [tlr]
13:06:29 [jcc]
jcc has joined #xmlsec
13:06:40 [GregB]
TOPIC: Actions Review
13:07:23 [GregB]
ACTION-1 closed
13:07:23 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:08:10 [GregB]
ACTION-2 closed
13:08:10 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:09:33 [GregB]
ACTION-6 requires additional information in note regarding example from yesterday's presentation
13:12:11 [GregB]
ACTION-10 Austrian governement does not use transforms when they use Type attribute (i.e. the type denotes the input to the digest)
13:16:58 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
13:16:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [NRCC], EdSimon
13:17:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jcc, rsalz, EdSimon, sean, rdm, tlr, klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng
13:17:40 [klanz2]
The optional Type attribute denotes the item, not its contents.
13:18:08 [fjh]
fjh has joined #xmlsec
13:18:20 [klanz2]
The optional Type attribute denotes the item, not its contents.
13:19:16 [klanz2]
The optional Type attribute denotes the item (post transform), not its contents.
13:19:46 [klanz2]
The optional Type attribute denotes the item (post transform if any), not it's contents.
13:20:39 [grw]
grw has joined #xmlsec
13:20:55 [klanz2]
The optional Type attribute denotes the actually digested item, not it's contents.
13:22:02 [deastlak]
deastlak has joined #xmlsec
13:22:35 [jcc]
13:22:50 [GregB]
ACTION: klanz2 to post E05 discussion to public list
13:22:50 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-14 - Post E05 discussion to public list [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-05-10].
13:23:34 [tlr]
tlr has changed the topic to:
13:23:36 [GregB]
13:24:00 [GregB]
ACTION-10 closed
13:24:00 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:25:17 [fjh]
this is the text in question in - The Type attribute applies to the item being pointed at, not its contents. For example, a reference that identifies an Object element containing a SignatureProperties element is still of type #Object. The type attribute is advisory. No validation of the type information is required by this specification.
13:26:07 [GregB]
ACTION-11 closed
13:26:07 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:26:57 [PHB]
PHB has joined #xmlsec
13:27:08 [GregB]
TOPIC: November Plenary
13:27:09 [GregB]
TOPIC: November Plenary
13:27:55 [tlr]
13:28:11 [fjh]
latest redline of sig is
13:29:40 [klanz2]
ack klanz2
13:29:45 [klanz2]
13:29:56 [jcc]
13:30:47 [GregB]
Estimating 15 people attendance at plenary
13:31:16 [GregB]
Days preferred: Thursday PM, Friday, all day, Saturday morning, but may not use Saturday
13:33:05 [GregB]
Like to meet with: XML Core
13:33:18 [GregB]
Membership overlap identified: WS Context WG
13:33:53 [GregB]
Chair overlap with WS-Policy
13:36:03 [GregB]
Will allow non-members with prior approval of chair
13:37:58 [GregB]
Questionnaire results:
13:38:13 [GregB]
TOPIC: Canonicalization Comments
13:39:27 [GregB]
fjh: suggested xml:base and xml:id examples be added
13:40:44 [GregB]
fjh: RFC 3986 is referenced several times, but not hyperlinked. Link should be added.
13:43:34 [GregB]
fjh: See for proposed comments
13:44:27 [fjh]
C14N11 is only applicable to XML 1.0 and XPath 1.0 and is not
13:44:40 [fjh]
applicable to XML 1.1 and XPath 2.0.
13:45:02 [rsalz]
I suggest changing "is not applicable to" to "is not defined for"
13:45:29 [GregB]
13:46:40 [tlr]
C14N11 is applicable to XML 1.0 and defined in terms of the XPath 1.0 data model. It is not defined for XML 1.1.
13:48:05 [klanz2]
klanz2 has joined #xmlsec
13:48:14 [GregB]
RESOLUTION: Accept changes proposed in
13:48:31 [fjh]
RRSAgent, where am I?
13:48:31 [RRSAgent]
13:49:47 [GregB]
GregB has joined #xmlsec
13:50:07 [fjh]
RESOLUTION: accept proposed text as C14N comment "C14N11 is applicable to XML 1.0 and defined in terms of the XPath 1.0 data model. It is not defined for XML 1.1."
13:50:14 [fjh]
RRSAgent, where am I?
13:50:14 [RRSAgent]
13:50:17 [grw]
grw has joined #xmlsec
13:51:53 [GregB]
fjh: C14N11 Issue and proposal: Unclear handling of unspecified attributes in xml namespace
13:52:03 [GregB]
13:52:37 [klanz2]
13:52:39 [klanz2]
13:53:52 [klanz2]
RFC2119 "SHOULD" throw an error as in
13:53:56 [EdSimon]
13:54:12 [fjh]
ack klanz
13:54:15 [rsalz]
13:54:43 [klanz2]
13:54:47 [fjh]
ack EdSimon
13:54:55 [GregB]
klanz2: this is option 3 with SHOULD instead of MUST
13:55:42 [rsalz]
13:55:51 [fjh]
ack rsalz
13:56:27 [GregB]
rsalz: We should propose #1 or #2 and expect XML core to pick one
13:56:59 [tlr]
13:58:06 [fjh]
13:58:11 [fjh]
ack tlr
13:58:46 [klanz2]
13:59:28 [fjh]
ack klanz
13:59:33 [GregB]
tlr: We should ask XML Core to clarify future use of xml:
14:00:08 [grw]
grw has joined #xmlsec
14:00:42 [tlr]
14:01:35 [GregB]
fjh: should we change 'MUST throw an error' to 'SHOULD throw an error'
14:01:42 [GregB]
... for #3
14:01:50 [tlr]
14:02:02 [fjh]
rich: should for #3 would be ambiguous, so if you decide it is ok then could do #1, then just choose #1
14:03:33 [grw]
14:03:44 [fjh]
Ed, can you see the email -
14:04:09 [fjh]
in favor of #1, or cannot live with #1
14:04:52 [GregB]
12 in favor, 2 did not oppose, but not in favor
14:06:19 [fjh]
14:06:31 [fjh]
ack grw
14:06:35 [EdSimon]
I lean toward option 1 of fjh's C14N11 note.
14:06:35 [PHB]
14:07:36 [PHB]
14:09:38 [klanz2]
14:11:12 [GregB]
straw poll in favour of #2
14:11:15 [EdSimon]
Ed is not in favour of option 2
14:11:38 [GregB]
2 in favour of #2, 2 opposed, the rest indifferent
14:12:21 [fjh]
greg whitehead: benefit of #1 is ability to define transform
14:12:33 [tlr]
14:12:43 [EdSimon]
Ed shares the concern expressed that option 2 may lead to security concerns as mentioned by another participant.
14:12:51 [GregB]
straw poll on #3
14:13:04 [GregB]
1 in favour, 2 opposed
14:13:16 [tlr]
14:13:49 [GregB]
klanz: maybe #1 is acceptable, but its a bet against the future with the potential to render things insecure
14:14:20 [fjh]
ack klanz
14:14:23 [fjh]
ack tlr
14:14:23 [grw]
14:14:55 [rsalz]
My vote in favor of #1 and #2 is more accurately "indifferent"
14:15:10 [GregB]
tlr: transform should be specified when new attributes are introduced
14:15:43 [EdSimon]
Should we require/request that new additions to XML Core include consideration of canonicalization?
14:15:55 [klanz2]
14:16:15 [rsalz]
+1 to EdSimon
14:16:27 [tlr]
+1 as well
14:17:05 [EdSimon]
14:17:30 [GregB]
grw: there is responsibility on the signer; XML Core needs to recognize when they introduce new names
14:17:53 [fjh]
ack grw
14:17:54 [GregB]
... that security, et al needs to be addressed
14:17:58 [fjh]
ack klanz
14:18:10 [fjh]
ack EdSimon
14:19:55 [GregB]
grw: There must be security considerations around the introduction of new names and we just need to be explicit about what is dealt with and what is no
14:19:59 [GregB]
14:20:11 [fjh]
s/names/attributes in the xml namespace/
14:21:17 [GregB]
fjh: This is a process, not a spec recommendation. Who does that go to?
14:22:03 [tlr]
Need for security review of changes to XML that affect Canonicalization and Signature.
14:22:09 [GregB]
ACTION: Frederick to Raise on XML coordination list the need for XML security considerations with regards to xml namespace additions
14:22:09 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-15 - Raise on XML coordination list the need for XML security considerations with regards to xml namespace additions [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2007-05-10].
14:22:12 [tlr]
e..g, new attrbutes
14:23:29 [EdSimon]
There should be a security review of any new XML Core features; XML Core should not risk introducing features that introduce security concerns.
14:24:48 [fjh]
Any attribute in the XML namespace that is neither a Simple Inheritable Attribute (xml:lang and xml:space as defined above), or xml:id or xml:base shall not receive special treatment in the processing of Document Subsets. Specifically, no special processing shall be performed to provide inheritance when processing a document subset."
14:25:12 [fjh]
Section 2.4, Document Subsets
14:25:23 [deastlak]
XML namespace attributes other than xml:base, xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:space are treated as ordinary attributes.
14:25:55 [rsalz]
Attributes in the XML namespace other than ...
14:26:31 [fjh]
ttributes in the XML namespace other than xml:base, xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:space MUST
14:26:38 [GregB]
s/are/MUST be/
14:26:39 [tlr]
Attributes in the XML namespace other than xml:base, xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:space MUST be treated as ordinary attributes
14:26:56 [fjh]
14:27:43 [GregB]
break. back at 1045EST
14:27:51 [GregB]
14:41:38 [GregB]
... and we're back
14:43:04 [tlr]
14:43:06 [fjh]
14:43:23 [GregB]
TOPIC: dsig errata E08
14:44:36 [fjh]
sig draft
14:46:03 [fjh]
section 4.4.3
14:46:54 [klanz2]
14:47:11 [EdSimon]
14:47:36 [rsalz]
14:47:41 [GregB]
klanz: ok with change if we can do it without changing the namespace
14:47:53 [klanz2]
14:48:02 [fjh]
ack EdSimon
14:48:20 [hal]
hal has joined #xmlsec
14:48:20 [GregB]
EdSimon: would like to correct, this is an error, but feels we cannot change the schema without changing the namespace
14:48:30 [grw]
14:48:44 [rsalz]
14:48:47 [rsalz]
+1 to ed
14:48:49 [klanz2]
14:48:49 [GregB]
EdSimon: may break applications where the schema has been signed
14:48:53 [hal]
14:49:12 [GregB]
fjh: schema and DTD contradict each other
14:49:44 [PHB]
14:50:26 [rsalz]
14:50:36 [GregB]
grw: more serious error to have schema that is too restrictive and it may be sufficient to correct it in prose
14:50:45 [fjh]
ack grw
14:51:02 [GregB]
tlr: two issues
14:51:09 [tlr]
14:51:13 [GregB]
tlr: change of part of spec that is expressed as xsd
14:51:14 [tlr]
14:51:24 [tlr]
14:51:40 [tlr]
14:52:09 [GregB]
tlr: and second, the actual published xsd file
14:53:06 [EdSimon]
Until we can change the namespace, I believe we have to live with the schema error. Do not want to break applications that sign the schema along with the data. The XML Sig spec should indicate the error.
14:53:43 [GregB]
tlr: section 1.1 - The schema definition is normative and differs from both the DTD and the text
14:53:53 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
14:54:10 [tlr]
14:54:11 [tlr]
14:54:19 [GregB]
grw: the text can further restrict the schema even though the intent may not be expressed in the schema
14:54:22 [fjh]
ack klanz
14:54:27 [rsalz]
14:54:37 [fjh]
konrad: notes that some may sign their schema, so not supportive of change
14:54:55 [GregB]
klanz: advocates not changing the schema because this will impact those who have signed the schema
14:54:56 [fjh]
ack hal
14:55:18 [GregB]
hal: best practice is to change the name when you make incompatible changes. Which would be the case.
14:55:57 [GregB]
hal: We could leave this as a major future revision. Possibly note in the spec that we are aware of the issue and explain why it has not been changed.
14:56:00 [grw]
14:56:06 [fjh]
ack PHB
14:56:29 [GregB]
PHB: should not change schema; DTD conflict is not an issue (perhaps drop it in the future, anyway)
14:56:51 [GregB]
PHB: All that the schema defines is what will fail validation
14:56:55 [fjh]
ack tlr
14:57:02 [rsalz]
Perhas annotate the schema to indicate the the REC requires the URI attribute even though "shown here as optoinal"
14:57:31 [hal]
s/incompatible changes/changes which are not backward compatible/
14:57:31 [GregB]
tlr: we all agree that the schema is wrong. we all agree that we should not change the schema at the URI
14:57:38 [EdSimon]
I agree with PHB that the DTD should be dropped in the next major revision.
14:58:00 [GregB]
tlr: in cleaning up the spec, should we leave it in, but specify the correct schema with a new URI
14:58:12 [rsalz]
14:58:22 [GregB]
grw: doesn't think it is worth the work
14:58:31 [GregB]
klanz2: +1
14:58:36 [rsalz]
14:58:40 [hal]
14:58:51 [GregB]
rsalz: its ok for the schema to be more loose than the text
14:59:39 [GregB]
15:01:25 [GregB]
tlr: we currently have two elements of normative text that conflict
15:02:11 [GregB]
fjh: we are not chartered for schema changes
15:02:24 [GregB]
deastlak: we do need text explaining the issue
15:03:00 [EdSimon]
The text can be more specific than the schema...but the schema should reflect the text as closely as possible. (This is a general comment and does not change my position above sbout NOT changing the current schema.)
15:03:02 [GregB]
fjh: it sounds like we have concensus we do not want to change the existing schema
15:03:11 [GregB]
fjh: it sounds like we all agree we need explanatory text
15:05:46 [GregB]
fjh: should we further clarify that text trumps the schema?
15:05:55 [GregB]
fjh: might break other things, though
15:07:29 [GregB]
tlr: proposes we add text, but raise issue for review with XML Coordination
15:08:23 [GregB]
Donald will produce a draft for section 4.4.3 changes
15:08:43 [rsalz]
Note that the schema marks this attribute as optional. Because this does not invalidate any legitimate signatures, and because invalid signatures would be found by processing rules, the difference will not be reconciled to avoid the risk of breaking current documents and implementations
15:09:21 [GregB]
RESOLUTION: For E08 we have agreed to not change the schema as recommended, but will add explanatory text and review with XML CG
15:09:37 [GregB]
RSSAgent, where am I?
15:09:48 [GregB]
RRSAgent, where am I?
15:09:48 [RRSAgent]
15:10:26 [GregB]
fjh: Need to talk about workshop. locations? times? other logistics?
15:10:38 [GregB]
TOPIC Workshop
15:10:49 [GregB]
fjh: Do we need to hash it out today or work it out on list?
15:11:52 [GregB]
tlr: We can look at relevant calendaring and poll who might be interested in hosting
15:12:07 [GregB]
tlr: plan for roughly 50 people
15:13:00 [GregB]
15:13:14 [tlr]
15:13:18 [GregB]
grw: maybe a BOF at the IETF
15:13:22 [GregB]
(IETF 69)
15:13:35 [GregB]
... July 22 week
15:13:49 [fjh]
... in chicago
15:14:05 [GregB]
tlr: BOF would be 2 hours (ish) where a workshop is several days
15:14:12 [GregB]
tlr: planning horizon is too narrow
15:14:38 [GregB]
tlr: could co-locate, but IETF is a pretty full week already
15:15:27 [GregB]
ACTION: jcc to look into hosting workshop
15:15:27 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - jcc
15:15:42 [GregB]
ACTION: Juan Carlos to look into hosting workshop
15:15:42 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Juan
15:16:05 [GregB]
ACTION: Juan-Carlos to look into hosting workshop
15:16:05 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Juan-Carlos
15:16:20 [tlr]
ACTION: Cruellas to look into workshop hosting
15:16:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-16 - Look into workshop hosting [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-05-10].
15:17:09 [tlr]
hal: offering to host at BEA in San Jose
15:20:43 [tlr]
... or in Mass ...
15:20:49 [tlr]
... but assumed we're ruling out Mass ...
15:20:57 [tlr]
fjh: Have you done the freedom trail?
15:21:30 [GregB]
last week august first week of Sept are probably out
15:21:43 [tlr]
hal: assume OASIS adoption forum later in fall
15:23:20 [GregB]
tlr: we need to draft a CFP
15:26:26 [tlr]
ACTION: thomas to draft CFP
15:26:26 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-17 - Draft CFP [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10].
15:28:43 [GregB]
hal: people should check their calendars for available workshop dates
15:28:47 [deastlak]
PHB and I have come up with a paragraph re RetrievalMethod
15:30:38 [GregB]
fjh: individuals should post to the list ideas regarding the CFP
15:32:26 [deastlak]
NOTE: The schema for the "URI" attribute of RetrievalMethod erroneously omitted the attribute
15:32:39 [deastlak]
15:32:51 [deastlak]
(The DTD is correct.) However, this error only results in a more lax schema which permits all valid RetrievalMethod elements. Because the existing schema is embedded in many applications, which may include the schema in their signatures, the schema has not been corrected to be more restrictive.
15:33:58 [GregB]
RESOLUTION: The above text should be accepted for the section 4.4.3
15:34:19 [GregB]
RRSAgent, where am I?
15:34:19 [RRSAgent]
15:34:45 [GregB]
TOPIC: Decrypt Transform
15:35:24 [klanz2]
RE E05:
15:35:27 [tlr]
15:39:42 [EdSimon]
I get Error 403: Forbidden when trying that link
15:40:38 [EdSimon]
I was referring to the "" link.
15:41:27 [GregB]
That appears to be true of all the resolution links
15:41:46 [tlr]
rrsagent, make this record public
15:42:12 [fjh]
decrypt transform rec -
15:43:14 [GregB]
TOPIC: Section 3.2 - Processing Rules
15:44:54 [GregB]
klanz2: it reads like the assumption was that xml:base would only appear at the document 'apex'
15:47:13 [GregB]
fjh: no specification recommendations yet, but a few areas for change:
15:47:23 [GregB]
... section 3
15:47:27 [GregB]
... section 3.1 is the main one
15:48:43 [GregB]
... section 3.4.2: inheriting attributes from the XML namespace: last paragraph would have to change
15:49:01 [GregB]
... a lot of the issues in C14N11 are replicated here
15:49:58 [GregB]
... should we be referencing C14N11 rather than duplicating the canonicalization document
15:50:07 [GregB]
... contents, that is
15:52:53 [tlr]
PROPOSED: replace second bullet to reference to C14N 1.1 handling of document subsets
15:53:23 [tlr]
(Context: definition of decryptXML transform in Decryption Transform, item 2, second bullet point)
15:59:20 [tlr]
15:59:24 [GregB]
discussion around finding people who have worked on decypt tranform interop
15:59:40 [GregB]
16:03:44 [grw]
googling for xml decryption transform
16:03:46 [grw]
16:05:05 [grw]
16:05:53 [grw]
16:11:45 [GregB]
fjh: next step is to get a last call draft; if unable to get an iterop it will remain at CR
16:12:57 [GregB]
fjh: is anyone interested in working on document?
16:13:04 [GregB]
16:16:05 [fjh]
greg whitehead: of interest in processing model where layer handles it below application layer
16:17:36 [GregB]
klanz2: there are issues around this that should go in future charter
16:18:06 [GregB]
klanz2: need well defined behaviour around taking XML out of a context and putting it back into a context
16:19:03 [GregB]
djh: decryption transform seems to serve a useful function, but there aren't too many implementations and there is not a lot of interest
16:19:12 [GregB]
djh: charter calls for a fix, but we have to get it right
16:19:59 [GregB]
grw: lets take the approach of least effort given the level of interest in the problem (incremental changes)
16:21:20 [tlr]
16:23:30 [GregB]
tlr: we should get this to a working draft, put it to last call if its ready, and see what the feedback looks like
16:24:26 [GregB]
TOPIC: agenda review and then break for lunch
16:24:52 [GregB]
fjh: discuss chartering and the wiki content
16:25:59 [GregB]
grw: need to defined test cases for sig interop tests.
16:26:26 [GregB]
... requirements for the test cases actually
16:30:22 [tlr]
ACTION: thomas to send e-mail about interop testing dependencies with Core
16:30:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-18 - Send e-mail about interop testing dependencies with Core [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10].
16:30:56 [GregB]
tlr: we have to coordinate with the C14N group because they have to go to rec before we go to proposed rec
16:32:01 [tlr]
tlr: A-SIT is offering to host workshop at TU Graz in September.
16:32:21 [tlr]
... not the first week of September ...
16:32:51 [GregB]
fjh: break until 0130EST
16:33:23 [Zakim]
16:56:43 [Zakim]
16:56:45 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has ended
16:56:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were [NRCC], EdSimon
17:12:42 [EdSimon]
EdSimon has joined #xmlsec
17:13:11 [EdSimon]
17:15:06 [deastlak]
deastlak has joined #xmlsec
17:15:52 [tlr]
tlr has joined #xmlsec
17:25:51 [fjh]
zakim, what is the number?
17:25:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, fjh.
17:26:46 [fjh]
zakim, code ?
17:26:46 [Zakim]
the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), fjh
17:27:49 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has now started
17:27:56 [Zakim]
17:28:17 [EdSimon]
called Zakim, says I'm the first participant
17:28:19 [Zakim]
17:28:28 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
17:28:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EdSimon, [NRCC]
17:28:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tlr, deastlak, EdSimon, hal, GregB, klanz2, PHB, fjh, jcc, rsalz, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot-ng
17:28:31 [EdSimon]
OK, I can hear now.
17:29:19 [EdSimon]
ok thanks
17:29:52 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
17:29:56 [fjh]
ScribeNick: sean
17:30:16 [fjh]
Topic: Test Case Requirements
17:32:19 [grw]
grw has joined #xmlsec
17:33:11 [sean]
fjh: use merlin test cases (16?) for regression tests
17:33:57 [rdm]
rdm has joined #xmlsec
17:34:59 [fjh]
17:36:25 [fjh]
c14N test in C14N11 feedback -
17:36:54 [sean]
hal: look through errata to see what tests are needed
17:39:07 [sean]
ACTION: Konrad to get test case for E01
17:39:07 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-19 - Get test case for E01 [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-05-10].
17:40:13 [sean]
there are existing dname tests, add reference to this
17:40:56 [sean]
fjh: Don't think we need tests for E02
17:40:57 [grw]
17:41:17 [sean]
fjh: Don't think we need tests for E03
17:41:40 [sean]
fjh: Don't think we need tests for E04
17:43:12 [fjh]
E02 and E03 refer to related work
17:43:25 [fjh]
E04 refers to language without changing behaviour
17:43:33 [sean]
Test case for E05 probably not needed (or practical)
17:44:11 [sean]
fjh: Should be a test for E06 to make sure it is a URI
17:45:02 [fjh]
sig redline -
17:46:18 [fjh]
thomas: test is to use API for base64 encoding of external image, see if URI used properly
17:47:22 [fjh]
Greg Whitehead: Base64 test exists, need to review it
17:47:28 [fjh]
Sean: Yes not well defined.
17:50:06 [sean]
fjh: Don't need tests for E07 & E08
17:50:38 [sean]
tlr: do we test what implementations do w/o URI (E06)
17:54:51 [sean]
tlr: c14n 1.1
17:55:04 [sean]
... build signature with xml:id in correct place
17:55:28 [sean]
... move it to wrong place and check behavior
18:01:47 [sean]
grw: focus on what test cases we need first
18:02:31 [fjh]
greg: test case for 1.0 as default see if 1.1 by mistake
18:03:47 [hal]
test case which checks for correct sig when xml:base is present
18:04:10 [hal]
test case which checks for correct sig when xml:id is present
18:05:11 [fjh]
thomas: generate sig over doc subset, must include c14n11 as final transform
18:06:14 [fjh]
greg: new generators not rely on default c14n
18:10:10 [fjh]
Topic: test using explicit transform during generation for c14n11
18:10:30 [klanz2]
Test case for conversion NodeSetData to OctetStreamData:
18:10:59 [fjh]
zakim, where am I?
18:10:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, fjh.
18:11:03 [klanz2]
Use case: Generate a signature having a reference with some xpath transform selecting NodeSetData
18:11:08 [fjh]
rrsagent, where am I?
18:11:08 [RRSAgent]
18:11:28 [klanz2]
then we add a XSLT transform that clearly needs OctetStreamData
18:14:28 [klanz2]
Check on verification: if the resulting signature actually made the use of c14n 1.1 explicit in the chain of transforms
18:22:22 [fjh]
thomas: is it an error to always put C14N11 transform at end of transform list
18:25:09 [fjh]
not an error to use c14n11 for docs with xml:id or xml:base when not using document subsets.
18:28:16 [sean]
grw: verifiers need to be upgraded to use 1.1, generators don't
18:30:33 [sean]
konrad: c14n old impl should not generate new signatures
18:32:56 [sean]
tlr: on receiving side continue to use c14n on old sigs, optionally hold and catch fire if find xml:id or xml:base
18:34:24 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
18:35:53 [sean]
tlr: on sending side, c14n 1.1 is mandatory to convert node-set to octet
18:36:17 [sean]
... c14n 1.0 is should/must not be used if xml:id or xml:base
18:39:48 [sean]
grw: new code able to operate in mode compatible with old code
18:43:56 [sean]
grw: what if ok to do it in old way and doesn't matter/not a risk to you even if wrong
18:44:11 [sean]
... must is too strong
18:46:06 [sean]
tlr: we agree on must implement c14n 1.1
18:48:52 [fjh]
generators that currently rely on implicit use of C14N10 in reference processing model must explicitly use C14N11
18:52:07 [rsalz]
Ratoinale: new (1.1-aware) generates must generate "more secure" signatures that explicitly use c14n1.1 transform. An old receiver will fail to validate because they do not recognize the 1.1 transform.
18:52:55 [rsalz]
The new generator can then generate the old-style signature, but it should (must?) explicitly specify 1.0 c14n; old recievers will work, and new receivers will recognize the signature as "less secure"
18:54:41 [tlr]
We RECOMMEND that signature generators do not use the default
18:54:41 [tlr]
canonicalization rules of the reference processing model. In
18:54:41 [tlr]
cases in which inclusive canonicalization is desired, we
18:54:41 [tlr]
RECOMMEND that XML-C14N 1.1 be used.
18:55:11 [tlr]
Could go into 6.5, above the algorithm descriptions.
19:01:53 [rsalz]
+1 to tlr's text
19:02:00 [fjh]
rrsagent, where am i?
19:02:00 [RRSAgent]
19:02:23 [fjh]
19:03:16 [Zakim]
19:03:52 [Zakim]
19:05:35 [sean]
where do we put new text?
19:05:38 [fjh]
sig spec -
19:07:14 [sean]
tlr: 3.1.1 is the right place
19:09:10 [sean]
tlr: if default c14n is specified should receiver catch fire if sees xml:id or xml:base?
19:09:29 [sean]
s/c14n/c14n 1.0/
19:09:50 [sean]
hal: generate a warning at most
19:11:00 [fjh]
19:14:32 [fjh]
19:14:45 [sean]
tlr: are we going to specify any error behavior in receiver when c14n 1.0 is used
19:15:53 [tlr]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: include security considerations note for processors that use c14n 1.0 in "unsafe" contexts, but do not specify error handling behavior
19:16:24 [tlr]
19:16:36 [tlr]
RESOLUTION: include security considerations note for validators that use c14n 1.0 in "unsafe" contexts, but do not specify error handling behavior
19:16:47 [fjh]
rrsagent, where am i?
19:16:47 [RRSAgent]
19:17:54 [sean]
hal: have to come up with plausible attack scenario for security note
19:19:55 [tlr]
konrad: should reference change in generation model
19:19:57 [tlr]
tlr: sounds good
19:23:03 [sean]
konrad: 2 test cases for each bullet in
19:25:09 [sean]
tlr: must have xml:id or xml:base to test that c14n 1.1 output is diff. from 1.0
19:26:32 [fjh]
tlr: if you can share additional test cases, please do so
19:31:38 [sean]
TOPIC: Best Practices
19:32:06 [sean]
fjh: not mandatory, but maybe do via wiki w/o too much trouble
19:32:53 [sean]
19:35:53 [sean]
hal: write down some general categories
19:36:02 [sean]
hal: security considerations
19:36:09 [sean]
hal: interop considerations
19:36:16 [sean]
tlr: perf bottlenecks
19:37:51 [sean]
fjh: people should feel to throw in ideas into wiki
19:38:38 [rsalz]
fjh mentioned what other communities have canonicalization algorithms? probably overlaps with potential workshop participants
19:38:41 [sean]
konrad: what is line between best practices & future work?
19:39:03 [sean]
hal: anything relevant to current specs is useful
19:39:25 [sean]
fjh: if chance of doing it should go in charter
19:39:53 [sean]
tlr: anything that is conformant, go into best practices; otherwise charter
19:41:48 [sean]
TOPIC: ExternalCoordination Page
19:42:28 [sean]
fjh: wiki with list of orgs that do stuff related to xml security
19:42:50 [sean]
19:43:15 [sean]
TOPIC: Charter Development
19:43:25 [sean]
19:44:11 [sean]
konrad: look at slides for c14n1.1 realtion to xml 1.1
19:45:06 [sean]
konrad: add stronger algorithms
19:45:44 [sean]
konrad: performance issues: efficient xml
19:46:11 [sean]
konrad: robustness: how do we do indentation correctly?
19:46:47 [sean]
konrad: in future create more robust signatures that survive longer
19:50:30 [tlr]
yesterday's minutes:
19:59:29 [PHB]
20:00:18 [fjh]
ack fjh
20:00:22 [fjh]
ack PHB
20:00:52 [sean]
phb: would like to see ECC suites defined as algs
20:02:21 [rsalz]
"NSA Suite B" crypto suite
20:04:27 [fjh]
rsalz: might want to proviide guildelines for new canoncialization algs
20:04:35 [fjh]
thomas: maybe part of our best practices
20:04:41 [fjh]
20:04:57 [fjh]
20:07:02 [grw]
if, in future work, we make processing like c14n schema-dependent then we should add explicit schema references as a parameter
20:10:21 [sean]
rich: big problem with affecting installed base w/o changing namespace
20:11:05 [deastlak]
I currently have received a request for ECDSA sigs using RIPEMD160
20:12:03 [fjh]
konrad: look at UDDI schema canonicalization
20:18:17 [sean]
fjh: agenda for next call should be workshop
20:21:25 [fjh]
Members of WG should review their calendars in advance of next meeting to determine constraints on Workshop
20:21:32 [deastlak]
deastlak has joined #xmlsec
20:22:15 [fjh]
Members of WG should also provide on mailing list input on desired location of workshop, benefit of reaching parties, e.g. west coast versus europe
20:22:36 [fjh]
Members of WG should review draft call for participation before next call after draft produced
20:22:58 [fjh]
Members of WG should Review Signature red-line after next revsion
20:23:37 [klanz2]
20:24:06 [fjh]
ACTION: Thomas to provide URI for additional algorithms
20:24:07 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-22 - Provide URI for additional algorithms [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10].
20:27:47 [sean]
donald: how do we want to specify algs in URIs? Do we want to add structure for the different components?
20:28:42 [tlr]
rrsagent, list participants
20:28:42 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'list participants', tlr. Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:28:47 [tlr]
zakim, list participants
20:28:47 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been EdSimon, [NRCC]
20:28:48 [sean]
meeting adjourned
20:28:55 [tlr]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
20:28:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
20:29:29 [Zakim]
20:29:31 [Zakim]
20:29:33 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has ended
20:29:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were EdSimon, [NRCC]
20:35:24 [PHB]
PHB has left #xmlsec
20:42:08 [jcc]
20:42:25 [jcc]
jcc has left #xmlsec
20:50:25 [tlr]
tlr has joined #xmlsec
21:10:44 [rsalz]
rsalz has joined #xmlsec
22:06:41 [tlr]
tlr has joined #xmlsec
22:50:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xmlsec