12:48:36 RRSAgent has joined #xmlsec 12:48:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc 12:48:49 Zakim, this will be xmlsec 12:48:49 ok, fjh; I see T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM scheduled to start 48 minutes ago 12:49:07 Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG 12:49:14 Chair: Frederick Hirsch 12:49:20 Regrets: Tony Nadalin 12:49:40 Scribe: Gregory Berezowsky 12:49:42 klanz2 has joined #xmlsec 12:50:18 klanz2 has joined #xmlsec 12:50:27 test 12:51:00 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Apr/0014.html 12:51:54 T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has now started 12:52:01 +[NRCC] 12:52:13 zakim, who is here 12:52:13 fjh, you need to end that query with '?' 12:52:18 zakim, who is here? 12:52:18 On the phone I see [NRCC] 12:52:19 On IRC I see klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng 12:52:20 tlr has joined #xmlsec 12:52:21 rdm has joined #xmlsec 12:52:46 sean has joined #xmlsec 12:56:51 +EdSimon 13:00:08 EdSimon has joined #xmlsec 13:00:08 TOPIC: Reconvene & Administrivia 13:01:08 Sean to scribe this afternoon 13:01:13 rsalz has joined #xmlsec 13:01:13 zakim, who is here? 13:01:13 On the phone I see [NRCC], EdSimon 13:01:14 On IRC I see rsalz, EdSimon, sean, rdm, tlr, klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng 13:01:53 Present+ GregWhitehead 13:01:58 Present+ JuanCarlosCruellas 13:02:01 Present+ KonradLanz 13:02:05 Present+ FrederickHirsch 13:02:10 Present+ RichSalz 13:02:37 Present+ GregBerezowsky 13:02:42 fjh: We should walk through the plenary details to decide on specifics 13:02:52 Present+ RobMiller 13:02:56 fjh: We should walk through open and closed actions 13:03:32 fjh: We should review the summary emails from yesterday's meeting 13:04:26 q+ 13:05:15 fjh: Do we need schema change for the errata? 13:05:45 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Group/track 13:06:29 jcc has joined #xmlsec 13:06:40 TOPIC: Actions Review 13:07:23 ACTION-1 closed 13:07:23 Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet 13:08:10 ACTION-2 closed 13:08:10 Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet 13:09:33 ACTION-6 requires additional information in note regarding example from yesterday's presentation 13:12:11 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 zakim, who is here? 13:16:58 On the phone I see [NRCC], EdSimon 13:17:00 On IRC I see jcc, rsalz, EdSimon, sean, rdm, tlr, klanz2, RRSAgent, Zakim, fjh, GregB, trackbot-ng 13:17:40 The optional Type attribute denotes the item, not its contents. 13:18:08 fjh has joined #xmlsec 13:18:20 The optional Type attribute denotes the item, not its contents. 13:19:16 The optional Type attribute denotes the item (post transform), not its contents. 13:19:46 The optional Type attribute denotes the item (post transform if any), not it's contents. 13:20:39 grw has joined #xmlsec 13:20:55 The optional Type attribute denotes the actually digested item, not it's contents. 13:22:02 deastlak has joined #xmlsec 13:22:35 q+ 13:22:50 ACTION: klanz2 to post E05 discussion to public list 13:22:50 Created ACTION-14 - Post E05 discussion to public list [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-05-10]. 13:23:34 tlr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Group/track 13:23:36 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Group/track/ 13:24:00 ACTION-10 closed 13:24:00 Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet 13:25:17 this is the text in question in 4.3.3.1 - 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 ACTION-11 closed 13:26:07 Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet 13:26:57 PHB has joined #xmlsec 13:27:08 TOPIC: November Plenary 13:27:09 TOPIC: November Plenary 13:27:55 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/TPAC07/ 13:28:11 latest redline of sig is http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/ 13:29:40 ack klanz2 13:29:45 q- 13:29:56 q- 13:30:47 Estimating 15 people attendance at plenary 13:31:16 Days preferred: Thursday PM, Friday, all day, Saturday morning, but may not use Saturday 13:33:05 Like to meet with: XML Core 13:33:18 Membership overlap identified: WS Context WG 13:33:53 Chair overlap with WS-Policy 13:36:03 Will allow non-members with prior approval of chair 13:37:58 Questionnaire results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/TPAC07/results 13:38:13 TOPIC: Canonicalization Comments 13:39:27 fjh: suggested xml:base and xml:id examples be added 13:40:44 fjh: RFC 3986 is referenced several times, but not hyperlinked. Link should be added. 13:43:34 fjh: See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0000.html for proposed comments 13:44:27 C14N11 is only applicable to XML 1.0 and XPath 1.0 and is not 13:44:40 applicable to XML 1.1 and XPath 2.0. 13:45:02 I suggest changing "is not applicable to" to "is not defined for" 13:45:29 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0003.html) 13:46:40 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 has joined #xmlsec 13:48:14 RESOLUTION: Accept changes proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0000.html 13:48:31 RRSAgent, where am I? 13:48:31 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T13-48-31 13:49:47 GregB has joined #xmlsec 13:50:07 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 RRSAgent, where am I? 13:50:14 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T13-50-14 13:50:17 grw has joined #xmlsec 13:51:53 fjh: C14N11 Issue and proposal: Unclear handling of unspecified attributes in xml namespace 13:52:03 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0002.html) 13:52:37 + 13:52:39 q+ 13:53:52 RFC2119 "SHOULD" throw an error as in 13:53:56 q+ 13:54:12 ack klanz 13:54:15 q+ 13:54:43 q- 13:54:47 ack EdSimon 13:54:55 klanz2: this is option 3 with SHOULD instead of MUST 13:55:42 q- 13:55:51 ack rsalz 13:56:27 rsalz: We should propose #1 or #2 and expect XML core to pick one 13:56:59 q+ 13:58:06 ack 13:58:11 ack tlr 13:58:46 q+ 13:59:28 ack klanz 13:59:33 tlr: We should ask XML Core to clarify future use of xml: 14:00:08 grw has joined #xmlsec 14:00:42 q+ 14:01:35 fjh: should we change 'MUST throw an error' to 'SHOULD throw an error' 14:01:42 ... for #3 14:01:50 q- 14:02:02 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 q+ 14:03:44 Ed, can you see the email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0002.html 14:04:09 in favor of #1, or cannot live with #1 14:04:52 12 in favor, 2 did not oppose, but not in favor 14:06:19 q? 14:06:31 ack grw 14:06:35 I lean toward option 1 of fjh's C14N11 note. 14:06:35 q+ 14:07:36 q- 14:09:38 q+ 14:11:12 straw poll in favour of #2 14:11:15 Ed is not in favour of option 2 14:11:38 2 in favour of #2, 2 opposed, the rest indifferent 14:12:21 greg whitehead: benefit of #1 is ability to define transform 14:12:33 q+ 14:12:43 Ed shares the concern expressed that option 2 may lead to security concerns as mentioned by another participant. 14:12:51 straw poll on #3 14:13:04 1 in favour, 2 opposed 14:13:16 q? 14:13:49 klanz: maybe #1 is acceptable, but its a bet against the future with the potential to render things insecure 14:14:20 ack klanz 14:14:23 ack tlr 14:14:23 q+ 14:14:55 My vote in favor of #1 and #2 is more accurately "indifferent" 14:15:10 tlr: transform should be specified when new attributes are introduced 14:15:43 Should we require/request that new additions to XML Core include consideration of canonicalization? 14:15:55 q+ 14:16:15 +1 to EdSimon 14:16:27 +1 as well 14:17:05 q+ 14:17:30 grw: there is responsibility on the signer; XML Core needs to recognize when they introduce new names 14:17:53 ack grw 14:17:54 ... that security, et al needs to be addressed 14:17:58 ack klanz 14:18:10 ack EdSimon 14:19:55 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 s/no/not/ 14:20:11 s/names/attributes in the xml namespace/ 14:21:17 fjh: This is a process, not a spec recommendation. Who does that go to? 14:22:03 Need for security review of changes to XML that affect Canonicalization and Signature. 14:22:09 ACTION: Frederick to Raise on XML coordination list the need for XML security considerations with regards to xml namespace additions 14:22:09 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 e..g, new attrbutes 14:23:29 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 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 Section 2.4, Document Subsets 14:25:23 XML namespace attributes other than xml:base, xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:space are treated as ordinary attributes. 14:25:55 Attributes in the XML namespace other than ... 14:26:31 ttributes in the XML namespace other than xml:base, xml:id, xml:lang, and xml:space MUST 14:26:38 s/are/MUST be/ 14:26:39 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 s/treated/processed 14:27:43 break. back at 1045EST 14:27:51 s/1045/1040/ 14:41:38 ... and we're back 14:43:04 http://www.w3.org/mid/4639E78B.1000406@ac.upc.edu 14:43:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0007.html 14:43:23 TOPIC: dsig errata E08 14:44:36 sig draft http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/ 14:46:03 section 4.4.3 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-RetrievalMethod 14:46:54 q+ 14:47:11 q+ 14:47:36 q+ 14:47:41 klanz: ok with change if we can do it without changing the namespace 14:47:53 q- 14:48:02 ack EdSimon 14:48:20 hal has joined #xmlsec 14:48:20 EdSimon: would like to correct, this is an error, but feels we cannot change the schema without changing the namespace 14:48:30 q+ 14:48:44 q- 14:48:47 +1 to ed 14:48:49 q+ 14:48:49 EdSimon: may break applications where the schema has been signed 14:48:53 q+ 14:49:12 fjh: schema and DTD contradict each other 14:49:44 q+ 14:50:26 q+ 14:50:36 grw: more serious error to have schema that is too restrictive and it may be sufficient to correct it in prose 14:50:45 ack grw 14:51:02 tlr: two issues 14:51:09 q+ 14:51:13 tlr: change of part of spec that is expressed as xsd 14:51:14 q? 14:51:24 q+ 14:51:40 http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig 14:52:09 tlr: and second, the actual published xsd file 14:53:06 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 tlr: section 1.1 - The schema definition is normative and differs from both the DTD and the text 14:53:53 sean has joined #xmlsec 14:54:10 q? 14:54:11 q+ 14:54:19 grw: the text can further restrict the schema even though the intent may not be expressed in the schema 14:54:22 ack klanz 14:54:27 q- 14:54:37 konrad: notes that some may sign their schema, so not supportive of change 14:54:55 klanz: advocates not changing the schema because this will impact those who have signed the schema 14:54:56 ack hal 14:55:18 hal: best practice is to change the name when you make incompatible changes. Which would be the case. 14:55:57 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 +1 14:56:06 ack PHB 14:56:29 PHB: should not change schema; DTD conflict is not an issue (perhaps drop it in the future, anyway) 14:56:51 PHB: All that the schema defines is what will fail validation 14:56:55 ack tlr 14:57:02 Perhas annotate the schema to indicate the the REC requires the URI attribute even though "shown here as optoinal" 14:57:31 s/incompatible changes/changes which are not backward compatible/ 14:57:31 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 I agree with PHB that the DTD should be dropped in the next major revision. 14:58:00 tlr: in cleaning up the spec, should we leave it in, but specify the correct schema with a new URI 14:58:12 q+ 14:58:22 grw: doesn't think it is worth the work 14:58:31 klanz2: +1 14:58:36 q- 14:58:40 q+ 14:58:51 rsalz: its ok for the schema to be more loose than the text 14:59:39 q? 15:01:25 tlr: we currently have two elements of normative text that conflict 15:02:11 fjh: we are not chartered for schema changes 15:02:24 deastlak: we do need text explaining the issue 15:03:00 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 fjh: it sounds like we have concensus we do not want to change the existing schema 15:03:11 fjh: it sounds like we all agree we need explanatory text 15:05:46 fjh: should we further clarify that text trumps the schema? 15:05:55 fjh: might break other things, though 15:07:29 tlr: proposes we add text, but raise issue for review with XML Coordination 15:08:23 Donald will produce a draft for section 4.4.3 changes 15:08:43 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 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 RSSAgent, where am I? 15:09:48 RRSAgent, where am I? 15:09:48 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T15-09-48 15:10:26 fjh: Need to talk about workshop. locations? times? other logistics? 15:10:38 TOPIC Workshop 15:10:49 fjh: Do we need to hash it out today or work it out on list? 15:11:52 tlr: We can look at relevant calendaring and poll who might be interested in hosting 15:12:07 tlr: plan for roughly 50 people 15:13:00 q? 15:13:14 q+ 15:13:18 grw: maybe a BOF at the IETF 15:13:22 (IETF 69) 15:13:35 ... July 22 week 15:13:49 ... in chicago 15:14:05 tlr: BOF would be 2 hours (ish) where a workshop is several days 15:14:12 tlr: planning horizon is too narrow 15:14:38 tlr: could co-locate, but IETF is a pretty full week already 15:15:27 ACTION: jcc to look into hosting workshop 15:15:27 Sorry, couldn't find user - jcc 15:15:42 ACTION: Juan Carlos to look into hosting workshop 15:15:42 Sorry, couldn't find user - Juan 15:16:05 ACTION: Juan-Carlos to look into hosting workshop 15:16:05 Sorry, couldn't find user - Juan-Carlos 15:16:20 ACTION: Cruellas to look into workshop hosting 15:16:20 Created ACTION-16 - Look into workshop hosting [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-05-10]. 15:17:09 hal: offering to host at BEA in San Jose 15:20:43 ... or in Mass ... 15:20:49 ... but assumed we're ruling out Mass ... 15:20:57 fjh: Have you done the freedom trail? 15:21:30 last week august first week of Sept are probably out 15:21:43 hal: assume OASIS adoption forum later in fall 15:23:20 tlr: we need to draft a CFP 15:26:26 ACTION: thomas to draft CFP 15:26:26 Created ACTION-17 - Draft CFP [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10]. 15:28:43 hal: people should check their calendars for available workshop dates 15:28:47 PHB and I have come up with a paragraph re RetrievalMethod 15:30:38 fjh: individuals should post to the list ideas regarding the CFP 15:32:26 NOTE: The schema for the "URI" attribute of RetrievalMethod erroneously omitted the attribute 15:32:39 use="required" 15:32:51 (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 RESOLUTION: The above text should be accepted for the section 4.4.3 15:34:19 RRSAgent, where am I? 15:34:19 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T15-34-19 15:34:45 TOPIC: Decrypt Transform 15:35:24 RE E05: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0008.html 15:35:27 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-decrypt 15:39:42 I get Error 403: Forbidden when trying that link 15:40:38 I was referring to the "http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T15-34-19" link. 15:41:27 That appears to be true of all the resolution links 15:41:46 rrsagent, make this record public 15:42:12 decrypt transform rec - http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-decrypt 15:43:14 TOPIC: Section 3.2 - Processing Rules 15:44:54 klanz2: it reads like the assumption was that xml:base would only appear at the document 'apex' 15:47:13 fjh: no specification recommendations yet, but a few areas for change: 15:47:23 ... section 3 15:47:27 ... section 3.1 is the main one 15:48:43 ... section 3.4.2: inheriting attributes from the XML namespace: last paragraph would have to change 15:49:01 ... a lot of the issues in C14N11 are replicated here 15:49:58 ... should we be referencing C14N11 rather than duplicating the canonicalization document 15:50:07 ... contents, that is 15:52:53 PROPOSED: replace second bullet to reference to C14N 1.1 handling of document subsets 15:53:23 (Context: definition of decryptXML transform in Decryption Transform, item 2, second bullet point) 15:59:20 http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html#decryption-transform 15:59:24 discussion around finding people who have worked on decypt tranform interop 15:59:40 s/decypt/decrypt;/ 16:03:44 googling for xml decryption transform 16:03:46 http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/11/XMLSignatures/default.aspx 16:05:05 http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/xml/xss4j/docs/enc-readme.html 16:05:53 http://www.phaos.com/resources/docs/Phaos_XML_1.3/apidoc/com/phaos/xml/transform/DecryptTransform.html 16:11:45 fjh: next step is to get a last call draft; if unable to get an iterop it will remain at CR 16:12:57 fjh: is anyone interested in working on document? 16:13:04 silence 16:16:05 greg whitehead: of interest in processing model where layer handles it below application layer 16:17:36 klanz2: there are issues around this that should go in future charter 16:18:06 klanz2: need well defined behaviour around taking XML out of a context and putting it back into a context 16:19:03 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 djh: charter calls for a fix, but we have to get it right 16:19:59 grw: lets take the approach of least effort given the level of interest in the problem (incremental changes) 16:21:20 s/djh/fjh/g 16:23:30 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 TOPIC: agenda review and then break for lunch 16:24:52 fjh: discuss chartering and the wiki content 16:25:59 grw: need to defined test cases for sig interop tests. 16:26:26 ... requirements for the test cases actually 16:30:22 ACTION: thomas to send e-mail about interop testing dependencies with Core 16:30:22 Created ACTION-18 - Send e-mail about interop testing dependencies with Core [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10]. 16:30:56 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: A-SIT is offering to host workshop at TU Graz in September. 16:32:21 ... not the first week of September ... 16:32:51 fjh: break until 0130EST 16:33:23 -[NRCC] 16:56:43 -EdSimon 16:56:45 T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has ended 16:56:46 Attendees were [NRCC], EdSimon 17:12:42 EdSimon has joined #xmlsec 17:13:11 test 17:15:06 deastlak has joined #xmlsec 17:15:52 tlr has joined #xmlsec 17:25:51 zakim, what is the number? 17:25:51 I don't understand your question, fjh. 17:26:46 zakim, code ? 17:26:46 the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), fjh 17:27:49 T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has now started 17:27:56 +EdSimon 17:28:17 called Zakim, says I'm the first participant 17:28:19 +[NRCC] 17:28:28 zakim, who is here? 17:28:28 On the phone I see EdSimon, [NRCC] 17:28:29 On IRC I see tlr, deastlak, EdSimon, hal, GregB, klanz2, PHB, fjh, jcc, rsalz, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot-ng 17:28:31 OK, I can hear now. 17:29:19 ok thanks 17:29:52 sean has joined #xmlsec 17:29:56 ScribeNick: sean 17:30:16 Topic: Test Case Requirements 17:32:19 grw has joined #xmlsec 17:33:11 fjh: use merlin test cases (16?) for regression tests 17:33:57 rdm has joined #xmlsec 17:34:59 http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html 17:36:25 c14N test in C14N11 feedback - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0000.html 17:36:54 hal: look through errata to see what tests are needed 17:39:07 ACTION: Konrad to get test case for E01 17:39:07 Created ACTION-19 - Get test case for E01 [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-05-10]. 17:40:13 there are existing dname tests, add reference to this 17:40:56 fjh: Don't think we need tests for E02 17:40:57 http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html#DNAME 17:41:17 fjh: Don't think we need tests for E03 17:41:40 fjh: Don't think we need tests for E04 17:43:12 E02 and E03 refer to related work 17:43:25 E04 refers to language without changing behaviour 17:43:33 Test case for E05 probably not needed (or practical) 17:44:11 fjh: Should be a test for E06 to make sure it is a URI 17:45:02 sig redline - http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/ 17:46:18 thomas: test is to use API for base64 encoding of external image, see if URI used properly 17:47:22 Greg Whitehead: Base64 test exists, need to review it 17:47:28 Sean: Yes not well defined. 17:50:06 fjh: Don't need tests for E07 & E08 17:50:38 tlr: do we test what implementations do w/o URI (E06) 17:54:51 tlr: c14n 1.1 17:55:04 ... build signature with xml:id in correct place 17:55:28 ... move it to wrong place and check behavior 18:01:47 grw: focus on what test cases we need first 18:02:31 greg: test case for 1.0 as default see if 1.1 by mistake 18:03:47 test case which checks for correct sig when xml:base is present 18:04:10 test case which checks for correct sig when xml:id is present 18:05:11 thomas: generate sig over doc subset, must include c14n11 as final transform 18:06:14 greg: new generators not rely on default c14n 18:10:10 Topic: test using explicit transform during generation for c14n11 18:10:30 Test case for conversion NodeSetData to OctetStreamData: 18:10:59 zakim, where am I? 18:10:59 I don't understand your question, fjh. 18:11:03 Use case: Generate a signature having a reference with some xpath transform selecting NodeSetData 18:11:08 rrsagent, where am I? 18:11:08 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T18-11-08 18:11:28 then we add a XSLT transform that clearly needs OctetStreamData 18:14:28 Check on verification: if the resulting signature actually made the use of c14n 1.1 explicit in the chain of transforms 18:22:22 thomas: is it an error to always put C14N11 transform at end of transform list 18:25:09 not an error to use c14n11 for docs with xml:id or xml:base when not using document subsets. 18:28:16 grw: verifiers need to be upgraded to use 1.1, generators don't 18:30:33 konrad: c14n old impl should not generate new signatures 18:32:56 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 has joined #xmlsec 18:35:53 tlr: on sending side, c14n 1.1 is mandatory to convert node-set to octet 18:36:17 ... c14n 1.0 is should/must not be used if xml:id or xml:base 18:39:48 grw: new code able to operate in mode compatible with old code 18:43:56 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 ... must is too strong 18:46:06 tlr: we agree on must implement c14n 1.1 18:48:52 generators that currently rely on implicit use of C14N10 in reference processing model must explicitly use C14N11 18:52:07 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 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 We RECOMMEND that signature generators do not use the default 18:54:41 canonicalization rules of the reference processing model. In 18:54:41 cases in which inclusive canonicalization is desired, we 18:54:41 RECOMMEND that XML-C14N 1.1 be used. 18:55:11 Could go into 6.5, above the algorithm descriptions. 19:01:53 +1 to tlr's text 19:02:00 rrsagent, where am i? 19:02:00 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T19-02-00 19:02:23 s/Ratoin/Ration/ 19:03:16 -EdSimon 19:03:52 +EdSimon 19:05:35 where do we put new text? 19:05:38 sig spec - http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-c14nAlg 19:07:14 tlr: 3.1.1 is the right place 19:09:10 tlr: if default c14n is specified should receiver catch fire if sees xml:id or xml:base? 19:09:29 s/c14n/c14n 1.0/ 19:09:50 hal: generate a warning at most 19:11:00 q+ 19:14:32 ack 19:14:45 tlr: are we going to specify any error behavior in receiver when c14n 1.0 is used 19:15:53 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 s/processors/validators/ 19:16:36 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 rrsagent, where am i? 19:16:47 See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-irc#T19-16-47 19:17:54 hal: have to come up with plausible attack scenario for security note 19:19:55 konrad: 4.3.3.2 should reference change in generation model 19:19:57 tlr: sounds good 19:23:03 konrad: 2 test cases for each bullet in 4.3.3.2? 19:25:09 tlr: must have xml:id or xml:base to test that c14n 1.1 output is diff. from 1.0 19:26:32 tlr: if you can share additional test cases, please do so 19:31:38 TOPIC: Best Practices 19:32:06 fjh: not mandatory, but maybe do via wiki w/o too much trouble 19:32:53 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/wiki 19:35:53 hal: write down some general categories 19:36:02 hal: security considerations 19:36:09 hal: interop considerations 19:36:16 tlr: perf bottlenecks 19:37:51 fjh: people should feel to throw in ideas into wiki 19:38:38 fjh mentioned what other communities have canonicalization algorithms? probably overlaps with potential workshop participants 19:38:41 konrad: what is line between best practices & future work? 19:39:03 hal: anything relevant to current specs is useful 19:39:25 fjh: if chance of doing it should go in charter 19:39:53 tlr: anything that is conformant, go into best practices; otherwise charter 19:41:48 TOPIC: ExternalCoordination Page 19:42:28 fjh: wiki with list of orgs that do stuff related to xml security 19:42:50 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/wiki/ExternalCoordination 19:43:15 TOPIC: Charter Development 19:43:25 http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/wiki/CharterDevelopmentForSignatureEncryption 19:44:11 konrad: look at slides for c14n1.1 realtion to xml 1.1 19:45:06 konrad: add stronger algorithms 19:45:44 konrad: performance issues: efficient xml 19:46:11 konrad: robustness: how do we do indentation correctly? 19:46:47 konrad: in future create more robust signatures that survive longer 19:50:30 yesterday's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-xmlsec-minutes 19:59:29 q+ 20:00:18 ack fjh 20:00:22 ack PHB 20:00:52 phb: would like to see ECC suites defined as algs 20:02:21 "NSA Suite B" crypto suite 20:04:27 rsalz: might want to proviide guildelines for new canoncialization algs 20:04:35 thomas: maybe part of our best practices 20:04:41 s/ii/i/ 20:04:57 s/nci/nic/ 20:07:02 if, in future work, we make processing like c14n schema-dependent then we should add explicit schema references as a parameter 20:10:21 rich: big problem with affecting installed base w/o changing namespace 20:11:05 I currently have received a request for ECDSA sigs using RIPEMD160 20:12:03 konrad: look at UDDI schema canonicalization 20:18:17 fjh: agenda for next call should be workshop 20:21:25 Members of WG should review their calendars in advance of next meeting to determine constraints on Workshop 20:21:32 deastlak has joined #xmlsec 20:22:15 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 Members of WG should review draft call for participation before next call after draft produced 20:22:58 Members of WG should Review Signature red-line after next revsion 20:23:37 q? 20:24:06 ACTION: Thomas to provide URI for additional algorithms 20:24:07 Created ACTION-22 - Provide URI for additional algorithms [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-10]. 20:27:47 donald: how do we want to specify algs in URIs? Do we want to add structure for the different components? 20:28:42 rrsagent, list participants 20:28:42 I'm logging. I don't understand 'list participants', tlr. Try /msg RRSAgent help 20:28:47 zakim, list participants 20:28:47 As of this point the attendees have been EdSimon, [NRCC] 20:28:48 meeting adjourned 20:28:55 rrsagent, please draft minutes 20:28:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-xmlsec-minutes.html tlr 20:29:29 -[NRCC] 20:29:31 -EdSimon 20:29:33 T&S_XMLSEC()8:00AM has ended 20:29:34 Attendees were EdSimon, [NRCC] 20:35:24 PHB has left #xmlsec 20:42:08 quit 20:42:25 jcc has left #xmlsec 20:50:25 tlr has joined #xmlsec 21:10:44 rsalz has joined #xmlsec 22:06:41 tlr has joined #xmlsec 22:50:12 Zakim has left #xmlsec