Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
I've added this to the Widgets Signature specification. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:18 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Thanks Frederick! -Original Message- From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hir...@nokia.com] Sent: 22 April 2009 23:20 To: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group Cc: Frederick Hirsch; marc...@opera.com; Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/ Boston); public-webapps Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 I think the following items are fine and will add them to the spec: Signing parties are expected to ensure that the dsp:Identifier signature property value is unique for the widgets that they sign 5.5 and 7.2 I don't think there is anything else, though we need to check the blogs and also to see if any new mistakes have been introduced. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:53 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Thanks Frederick and Marcos - responses inline. Only a couple of questions left :) Regards, Mark -Original Message- From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: 22 April 2009 11:46 To: Frederick Hirsch; Priestley, Mark, VF-Group Cc: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-webapps Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: Mark Please find responses inline. Thanks for the review. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Hi Art, All, Please find below my editorial comments and requests for clarifications based on the new WD [1]. While it is a long list the comments are all minor and so hopefully easily addressed. Overall I think the spec is looking good, for which a lot of thanks must go to Frederick and Marcos! That said, I have a couple of more substantive comments that I will send in the next couple of days. Many thanks, Mark [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ - COMMENTS - 1.0 A widget package can be signed by the author of the widget producing an [XMLDSIG11] signature that cryptographically includes all of the file entries other than signature files. A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors, with XML signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. Change the last sentence for consistency between definitions, ie: ... A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors change of the widget, producing [XMLDSIG11] /change signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. ok [mp] Thanks - Can we remove the following sentence? This is a general property of signatures which I'm not sure we need to include. Digitally signing implies use of private key material only known by the signer, thus enabling verification of integrity and signature source. ok [mp] Thanks - 1.1 We don't actually define any XML elements in the http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig; namespace... is this worth noting this and/or removing the wsig prefix? We define URIs using this namespace so we should keep the URI definition. ok with removing prefix since it is not used now but would prefer to keep to avoid errors later. Not a big issue to remove though. [mp] I'm OK either way. - The terms XML elements and resources seem to be used interchangeably? Is there a difference? yes, one is xml elements others are resources as referenced by URI Mark, I'm worried you asked this question? Is there confusion somewhere wrt to the use resource and xml elements? [mp] No, it's mostly a case of me needing to read the text more carefully! My confusion was caused by the fact we only define the namespace prefixes that we use in throughout the spec in the context of resources. - Algorithms used by XML Security are defined in a number of places... - could we tighten up this sentence, eg something like This specification references algorithms defined in [XMLSecAlgs] and [XMLDSIG11] ? No, XMLSecAlgs does not define the algs. There are defined in a number of places :) OK - my concern was just that [XMLSecAlgs] cross references lots of algorithms that we don't need but happy to leave as it is. - 1.2 compressed (or Stored) - either remove capitalisation of Stored or add it to compressed I suggest stored. Marcos? Stored should probably be [Stored], with a reference to the RFC for the algorithm. [mp] OK for me - physical file - file ? Marcos? ok with file personally Agree. [mp] Thanks - top-most path level - is there a better way of saying this? don't think so unless you have a proposal without using
Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
to state this? the properties are not valid though the signature still might be valid. Interpretation of properties is profile dependent. - 9.2 Note that the same comments may apply to 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 dependent on the discussions on the mandatory/optional status of this property. same answers as for 9.1.2 -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: 02 April 2009 17:21 To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On March 31 a new WD of the Widgets 1.0 Digital Signature spec was published and announced on the W3C's home page: [[ 2009-03-31: The Web Applications Working Group has published a Working Draft of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures. This document defines a profile of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing 1.1 specification to allow a widget package to be digitally signed. Widget authors and distributors can digitally sign widgets as a trust and quality assurance mechanism. Prior to instantiation, a user agent can use the digital signature to verify the integrity of the widget package and perform source authentication. This document specifies conformance requirements on both widget packages and user agents. ]] Please review this new WD as soon as possible, preferably within the next two weeks: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ -Regards, Art Barstow -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
. suggest modification to ...which can affect the order in which distributor signatures are processed ok - 9.1.1 Upon signature generation, if this property is used, the value is set to ... Is inconsistent with the sentence from 5.1 which states: Each signature file MUST contain a dsp:Identifier signature properties element compliant with XML Signature Properties [XMLDSIG- Properties] and this specification. this is not inconsistent. Section 9 says if used, section 5.1 says it is used in the profile... Suggest deletion of , if this property is used, from the first sentence I do not think I understand the rationale for this change. - 9.1.2 Profiles MUST specify details of the identifier property value creation and interpretation. What does Profiles mean in this sentence the widgets signature specification is a profile... - If multiple instances of this property are found on a single signature, then applications MUST NOT deem any of these properties valid. - which would in turn mean that the signature was invalid, right? We may want to state this? the properties are not valid though the signature still might be valid. Interpretation of properties is profile dependent. - 9.2 Note that the same comments may apply to 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 dependent on the discussions on the mandatory/optional status of this property. same answers as for 9.1.2 -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: 02 April 2009 17:21 To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On March 31 a new WD of the Widgets 1.0 Digital Signature spec was published and announced on the W3C's home page: [[ 2009-03-31: The Web Applications Working Group has published a Working Draft of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures. This document defines a profile of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing 1.1 specification to allow a widget package to be digitally signed. Widget authors and distributors can digitally sign widgets as a trust and quality assurance mechanism. Prior to instantiation, a user agent can use the digital signature to verify the integrity of the widget package and perform source authentication. This document specifies conformance requirements on both widget packages and user agents. ]] Please review this new WD as soon as possible, preferably within the next two weeks: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ -Regards, Art Barstow -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
RE: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
Thanks Frederick and Marcos - responses inline. Only a couple of questions left :) Regards, Mark -Original Message- From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: 22 April 2009 11:46 To: Frederick Hirsch; Priestley, Mark, VF-Group Cc: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-webapps Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: Mark Please find responses inline. Thanks for the review. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Hi Art, All, Please find below my editorial comments and requests for clarifications based on the new WD [1]. While it is a long list the comments are all minor and so hopefully easily addressed. Overall I think the spec is looking good, for which a lot of thanks must go to Frederick and Marcos! That said, I have a couple of more substantive comments that I will send in the next couple of days. Many thanks, Mark [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ - COMMENTS - 1.0 A widget package can be signed by the author of the widget producing an [XMLDSIG11] signature that cryptographically includes all of the file entries other than signature files. A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors, with XML signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. Change the last sentence for consistency between definitions, ie: ... A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors change of the widget, producing [XMLDSIG11] /change signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. ok [mp] Thanks - Can we remove the following sentence? This is a general property of signatures which I'm not sure we need to include. Digitally signing implies use of private key material only known by the signer, thus enabling verification of integrity and signature source. ok [mp] Thanks - 1.1 We don't actually define any XML elements in the http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig; namespace... is this worth noting this and/or removing the wsig prefix? We define URIs using this namespace so we should keep the URI definition. ok with removing prefix since it is not used now but would prefer to keep to avoid errors later. Not a big issue to remove though. [mp] I'm OK either way. - The terms XML elements and resources seem to be used interchangeably? Is there a difference? yes, one is xml elements others are resources as referenced by URI Mark, I'm worried you asked this question? Is there confusion somewhere wrt to the use resource and xml elements? [mp] No, it's mostly a case of me needing to read the text more carefully! My confusion was caused by the fact we only define the namespace prefixes that we use in throughout the spec in the context of resources. - Algorithms used by XML Security are defined in a number of places... - could we tighten up this sentence, eg something like This specification references algorithms defined in [XMLSecAlgs] and [XMLDSIG11] ? No, XMLSecAlgs does not define the algs. There are defined in a number of places :) OK - my concern was just that [XMLSecAlgs] cross references lots of algorithms that we don't need but happy to leave as it is. - 1.2 compressed (or Stored) - either remove capitalisation of Stored or add it to compressed I suggest stored. Marcos? Stored should probably be [Stored], with a reference to the RFC for the algorithm. [mp] OK for me - physical file - file ? Marcos? ok with file personally Agree. [mp] Thanks - top-most path level - is there a better way of saying this? don't think so unless you have a proposal without using the word root I know it's nasty, but people understand it. Lets play wordsmith only once we have all the tech stuff solved. [mp] As I can't think of anything better, happy to leave as is. - which MAY logically contain - if the configuration file is made mandatory then the MAY should be a MUST I think it is a MAY, others? Technically, Mark is correct. But leave it as a MAY (or maybe drop MAY altogether) because this spec does not put conformance criteria on packaging. [mp] proposal of the widget package, which logically contain one or more file entries, as defined Note that reading this again - if a file entry is a file or a folder, then there must be at least one file entry unless the widget is an empty package (and if it's signed it can't be empty because at a minimum there would be a signature file entry!) so I think one one or more is correct. - Question: is a file entry the same
Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
I think the following items are fine and will add them to the spec: Signing parties are expected to ensure that the dsp:Identifier signature property value is unique for the widgets that they sign 5.5 and 7.2 I don't think there is anything else, though we need to check the blogs and also to see if any new mistakes have been introduced. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:53 PM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Thanks Frederick and Marcos - responses inline. Only a couple of questions left :) Regards, Mark -Original Message- From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: 22 April 2009 11:46 To: Frederick Hirsch; Priestley, Mark, VF-Group Cc: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-webapps Subject: Re: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: Mark Please find responses inline. Thanks for the review. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote: Hi Art, All, Please find below my editorial comments and requests for clarifications based on the new WD [1]. While it is a long list the comments are all minor and so hopefully easily addressed. Overall I think the spec is looking good, for which a lot of thanks must go to Frederick and Marcos! That said, I have a couple of more substantive comments that I will send in the next couple of days. Many thanks, Mark [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ - COMMENTS - 1.0 A widget package can be signed by the author of the widget producing an [XMLDSIG11] signature that cryptographically includes all of the file entries other than signature files. A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors, with XML signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. Change the last sentence for consistency between definitions, ie: ... A widget package can also be signed by one or more distributors change of the widget, producing [XMLDSIG11] /change signatures that each cryptographically includes all of the non-signature file entries as well as any author signature. ok [mp] Thanks - Can we remove the following sentence? This is a general property of signatures which I'm not sure we need to include. Digitally signing implies use of private key material only known by the signer, thus enabling verification of integrity and signature source. ok [mp] Thanks - 1.1 We don't actually define any XML elements in the http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig; namespace... is this worth noting this and/or removing the wsig prefix? We define URIs using this namespace so we should keep the URI definition. ok with removing prefix since it is not used now but would prefer to keep to avoid errors later. Not a big issue to remove though. [mp] I'm OK either way. - The terms XML elements and resources seem to be used interchangeably? Is there a difference? yes, one is xml elements others are resources as referenced by URI Mark, I'm worried you asked this question? Is there confusion somewhere wrt to the use resource and xml elements? [mp] No, it's mostly a case of me needing to read the text more carefully! My confusion was caused by the fact we only define the namespace prefixes that we use in throughout the spec in the context of resources. - Algorithms used by XML Security are defined in a number of places... - could we tighten up this sentence, eg something like This specification references algorithms defined in [XMLSecAlgs] and [XMLDSIG11] ? No, XMLSecAlgs does not define the algs. There are defined in a number of places :) OK - my concern was just that [XMLSecAlgs] cross references lots of algorithms that we don't need but happy to leave as it is. - 1.2 compressed (or Stored) - either remove capitalisation of Stored or add it to compressed I suggest stored. Marcos? Stored should probably be [Stored], with a reference to the RFC for the algorithm. [mp] OK for me - physical file - file ? Marcos? ok with file personally Agree. [mp] Thanks - top-most path level - is there a better way of saying this? don't think so unless you have a proposal without using the word root I know it's nasty, but people understand it. Lets play wordsmith only once we have all the tech stuff solved. [mp] As I can't think of anything better, happy to leave as is. - which MAY logically contain - if the configuration file is made mandatory then the MAY should be a MUST I think it is a MAY, others? Technically, Mark is correct. But leave it as a MAY (or maybe drop MAY altogether) because this spec does not put conformance criteria on packaging. [mp
RE: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31
: what does this mean? What is it requiring from a widget package? - 5.4 Implementations MUST be prepared to accept X.509 v3 certificates [RFC5280]. Can we say User agents rather than implementations - 5.5 It MUST be unique for a given signer. Do we need to make it clear that we are not expecting the UA to check this? I take it we're not asking the UA to check this, right? - 7.1 Each ds:Signature property - Each ds:SignatureProperty ? - In step 5 there is no bullet for digest algorithms, which there probably should be. - 7.2 This MUST be a unique signing string for all signature files created by the signer. - same comment as 5.5. ie - Do we need to make it clear that we are not expecting the UA to check this? - 7.3 If signature file validation fails for any reason, any external entities (e.g., a user agent that implements [Widgets Packaging]) relying on the validation of the signature file MUST be notified of the failure... Maybe we should say that notification of successful validation must also be provided? - 8 A signature file may also be renamed, which can affect processing. suggest modification to ...which can affect the order in which distributor signatures are processed - 9.1.1 Upon signature generation, if this property is used, the value is set to ... Is inconsistent with the sentence from 5.1 which states: Each signature file MUST contain a dsp:Identifier signature properties element compliant with XML Signature Properties [XMLDSIG-Properties] and this specification. Suggest deletion of , if this property is used, from the first sentence - 9.1.2 Profiles MUST specify details of the identifier property value creation and interpretation. What does Profiles mean in this sentence - If multiple instances of this property are found on a single signature, then applications MUST NOT deem any of these properties valid. - which would in turn mean that the signature was invalid, right? We may want to state this? - 9.2 Note that the same comments may apply to 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 dependent on the discussions on the mandatory/optional status of this property. -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: 02 April 2009 17:21 To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31 On March 31 a new WD of the Widgets 1.0 Digital Signature spec was published and announced on the W3C's home page: [[ 2009-03-31: The Web Applications Working Group has published a Working Draft of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures. This document defines a profile of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing 1.1 specification to allow a widget package to be digitally signed. Widget authors and distributors can digitally sign widgets as a trust and quality assurance mechanism. Prior to instantiation, a user agent can use the digital signature to verify the integrity of the widget package and perform source authentication. This document specifies conformance requirements on both widget packages and user agents. ]] Please review this new WD as soon as possible, preferably within the next two weeks: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-digsig-20090331/ -Regards, Art Barstow
