Here

Jargon File
Memos in the Requests for Comments (RFC) document series contain technical and organizational notes about the Internet. They cover many aspects of computer networking, including protocols, procedures, programs, and concepts, as well as meeting notes, opinions, and sometimes humor.

RFCs are numbered (roughly) consecutively, and these numbers provide a single unique label space for all RFCs. RFCs are published on-line through a number of repositories, and here is an online index of RFCs.
0000-0500 · 0500-1000 · 1000-1500 · 1500-2000 · 2000-2500
2500-3000 · 3000-3500 · 3500-4000 · 4000-4500 · 4500-5000
5000-5500 · 5500-6000 · 6000-6500 · 6500-7000 · 7000-7500

Download in HTML formatDownload in TEXT format
Network Working Group                                           J. Reagle
Request for Comments: 2807                                        W3C/MIT
Category: Informational                                         July 2000


                       XML Signature Requirements

Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2000 The Internet Society & W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document lists the design principles, scope, and requirements for the XML Digital Signature specification. It includes requirements as they relate to the signature syntax, data model, format, cryptographic processing, and external requirements and coordination.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................. 1 2. Design Principles and Scope ............................... 2 3. Requirements .............................................. 4 3.1. Signature Data Model and Syntax .................... 4 3.2. Format ............................................. 5 3.3. Cryptography and Processing ........................ 5 3.4 Coordination ........................................ 5 4. Security Considerations ................................... 6 5. References ................................................ 6 6. Acknowledgements .......................................... 8 7. Author's Address .......................................... 8 8. Full Copyright Statement .................................. 9
1. Introduction
The XML 1.0 Recommendation [XML] describes the syntax of a class of data objects called XML documents. The mission of this working group is to develop a XML syntax used for representing signatures on digital content and procedures for computing and verifying such signatures. Signatures will provide data integrity, authentication, and/or non-repudiability. Reagle Informational [Page 1]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 This document lists the design principles, scope, and requirements over three things: (1) the scope of work available to the WG, (2) the XML signature specification, and (3) applications that implement the specification. It includes requirements as they relate to the signature syntax, data model, format, cryptographic processing, and external requirements and coordination. Those things that are required are designated as "must", those things that are optional are designated by "may", those things that are optional but recommended are designated as "should".
2. Design Principles and Scope
1. The specification must describe how to sign digital content, and XML content in particular. The XML syntax used to represent a signature (over any content) is described as an XML Signature. [Charter] 2. XML Signatures are generated from a hash over the canonical form of a signature manifest. (In this document we use the term manifest to mean a collection of references to the objects being signed. The specifications may use the terms manifest, package or other terms differently from this document while still meeting this requirement.) The manifest must support references to Web resources, the hash of the resource content (or its canonicalized form), and (optionally) the resource content type. [Brown, List(Solo)] Web resources are defined as any digital content that can be addressed using the syntax of XLink locator [XLink]). 3. The meaning of a signature is simple: The XML Signature syntax associates the content of resources listed in a manifest with a key via a strong one-way transformation. 1. The XML Signature syntax must be extensible such that it can support arbitrary application/trust semantics and assertion capabilities -- that can also be signed. [Charter(Requirement1&4), List(Bugbee, Solo)] 2. The WG is not chartered to specify trust semantics, but syntax and processing rules necessary for communicating signature validity (authenticity, integrity and non-repudiation). [Charter(Requirement1)] At the Chairs' discretion and in order to test the extensibility of the syntax, the WG may produce non-critical-path proposals defining common semantics (e.g., manifest, package, timestamps, endorsement, etc.) relevant to signed assertions about Web resources in a schema definition [XML, RDF] or link type definition [XLink]. Comment: A more formal definition of a signed resource is below. The notation is "definition(inputs):constraints" where definition evaluates as true for the given inputs and specified constraints. signed-resource(URI-of-resource, content, key, signature): (there was some protocol message at a specific time such that "GET(URI- of-resource) = content") AND (sign-doc(content, key, sig)) Reagle Informational [Page 2]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 sign-doc(content, key, signature): signature is the value of a strong one-way transformation over content and key that yields content integrity/validity and/or key non-repudiability 4. The specification must not specify methods of confidentiality though the Working Group may report on the feasibility of such work in a future or rechartered activity. [List(Bugbee)] 5. The specification must only require the provision of key information essential to checking the validity of the cryptographic signature. For instance, identity and key recovery information might be of interest to particular applications, but they are not within the class of required information defined in this specification. [List(Reagle)] 6. The specification must define or reference at least one method of canonicalizing and hashing the signature syntax (i.e., the manifest and signature blocks). [Oslo] The specification must not specify methods of canonicalizing resource content [Charter], though it may specify security requirements over such methods. [Oslo] Such content is normalized by specifying an appropriate content C14N (canonicalization) algorithm [DOMHASH, XML-C14N]. Applications are expected to normalize application specific semantics prior to handing data to a XML Signature application or specify the necessary transformations for this process within the signature. [Charter] 7. XML Signature applications must be conformant with the specifications as follows: 1. XML-namespaces [XML-namespaces] within its own signature syntax. Applications may choose C14N algorithms which do or do not process namespaces within XML content. For instance, some C14N algorithms may opt to remove all namespace declarations, others may rewrite namespace declarations to provide for context independent declarations within every element. 2. XLink [Xlink] within its own signature syntax. For any resource identification beyond simple URIs (without fragment IDs) or fragmentIDs, applications must use XLink locators to reference signed resources. Signature applications must not embed or expand XLink references in signed content, though applications may choose C14N algorithms which provide this feature. 3. XML-Pointers [XPointer] within its own signature syntax. If applications reference/select parts of XML documents, they must use XML-Pointer within an XLink locator. [WS-list(1)] The WG may specify security requirements that constrain the operation of these dependencies to ensure consistent and secure signature generation and operation. [Oslo] Reagle Informational [Page 3]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 8. XML Signatures must be developed as part of the broader Web design philosophy of decentralization, URIs, Web data, modularity/layering/extensibility, and assertions as statements about statements. [Berners-Lee, WebData] In this context, existing cryptographic provider (and infrastructure) primitives should be taken advantage of. [List(Solo)]
3. Requirements
3.1 Signature Data Model and Syntax
1. XML Signature data structures must be based on the RDF data model [RDF] but need not use the RDF serialization syntax. [Charter] 2. XML Signatures apply to any resource addressable by a locator -- including non-XML content. XML Signature referents are identified with XML locators (URIs or fragments) within the manifest that refer to external or internal resources (i.e., network accessible or within the same XML document/package). [Berners-Lee, Brown, List(Vincent), WS, XFDL] 3. XML Signatures must be able to apply to a part or totality of a XML document. [Charter, Brown] Comment: A related requirement under consideration is requiring the specification to support the ability to indicate those portions of a document one signs via exclusion of those portions one does not wish to sign. This feature allows one to create signatures that have document closure [List(Boyer(1)], retain ancestor information, and retain element order of non-continuous regions that must be signed. We are considering implementing this requirement via (1) a special <dsig:exclude> element, (2) an exclude list accompanying the resource locator, or (3) the XML-Fragment or XPointer specifications -- or a requested change to those specifications if the functionality is not available. See List(Boyer(1,2)) for further discussion of this issue. 4. Multiple XML Signatures must be able to exist over the static content of a Web resource given varied keys, content transformations, and algorithm specifications (signature, hash, canonicalization, etc.). [Charter, Brown] 5. XML Signatures are first class objects themselves and consequently must be able to be referenced and signed. [Berners-Lee] 6. The specification must permit the use of varied digital signature and message authentication codes, such as symmetric and asymmetric authentication schemes as well as dynamic agreement of keying material. [Brown] Resource or algorithm identifier are a first class objects, and must be addressable by a URI. [Berners-Lee] 7. XML Signatures must be able to apply to the original version of an included/encoded resource. [WS-list (Brown/Himes)] Reagle Informational [Page 4]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000
3.2 Format
1. An XML Signature must be an XML element (as defined by production 39 of the XML1.0 specification. [XML]) 2. When XML signatures are placed within a document the operation must preserve (1) the document's root element tag as root and (2) the root's descendancy tree except for the addition of signature element(s) in places permitted by the document's content model. For example, an XML form, when signed, should still be recognizable as a XML form to its application after it has been signed. [WS-summary] 3. XML Signature must provide a mechanism that facilitates the production of composite documents -- by addition or deletion -- while preserving the signature characteristics (integrity, authentication, and non-repudiability) of the consituent parts. [Charter, Brown, List(Bugbee)] 4. An important use of XML Signatures will be detached Web signatures. However, signatures may be embedded within or encapsulate XML or encoded content. [Charter] This WG must specify a simple method of packaging and encapsulation if no W3C Recommendation is available.
3.3 Cryptography and Processing
1. The specification must permit arbitrary cryptographic signature and message authentication algorithms, symmetric and asymmetric authentication schemes, and key agreement methods. [Brown] 2. The specification must specify at least one mandatory to implement signature canonicalization, content canonicalization, hash, and signature algorithm. 3. In the event of redundant attributes within the XML Signature syntax and relevant cryptographic blobs, XML Signature applications prefer the XML Signature semantics. Comment: Another possibility is that an error should be generated, however it isn't where a conflict will be flagged between the various function and application layers regardless. 4. The signature design and specification text must not permit implementers to erroneously build weak implementations susceptible to common security weaknesses (such as as downgrade or algorithm substitution attacks).
3.4 Coordination
1. The XML Signature specification should meet the requirements of the following applications: 1. Internet Open Trading Protocol v1.0 [IOTP] 2. Financial Services Mark Up Language v2.0 [Charter] 3. At least one forms application [XFA, XFDL] Reagle Informational [Page 5]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 2. To ensure that all requirements within this document are adequately addressed, the XML Signature specification must be reviewed by a designated member of the following communities: 1. XML Syntax Working Group: canonicalization dependencies. [Charter] 2. XML Linking Working Group: signature referents. [Charter] 3. XML Schema Working Group: signature schema design. [Charter] 4. Metadata Coordination Group: data model design. [Charter] 5. W3C Internationalization Interest Group: [AC Review] 6. XML Package Working Group: signed content in/over packages. 7. XML Fragment Working Group: signing portions of XML content. Comment: Members of the WG are very interested in signing and processing XML fragments and packaged components. Boyer asserts that [XML-fragment] does not "identify non-contiguous portions of a document in such a way that the relative positions of the connected components is preserved". Packaging is a capability critical to XML Signature applications, but it is clearly dependent on clear trust/semantic definitions, package application requirements, and even cache-like application requirements. It is not clear how this work will be addressed.
4. Security Considerations
This document lists XML Digital Signature requirements as they relate to the signature syntax, data model, format, cryptographic processing, and external requirements and coordination. In that context much of this document is about security.
5. References
AC Review Misha Wolf. "The Charter should include the I18N WG in the section on `Coordination with Other Groups'", http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/xml- dsig-review/1999May/0007.html Berners-Lee Axioms of Web Architecture: URIs. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html Web Architecture from 50,000 feet http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html Brown-XML-DSig Work in Progress. Digital Signatures for XML http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig- signature-990618.html Charter XML Signature (xmldsig) Charter. http://www.w3.org/1999/05/XML-DSig-charter- 990521.html Reagle Informational [Page 6]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 DOMHASH Maruyama, H., Tamura, K. and N. Uramoto, "Digest Values for DOM (DOMHASH)", RFC 2803, April 2000. FSML FSML 1.5 Reference Specification http://www.echeck.org/library/ref/fsml-v1500a.pdf Infoset-Req XML Information Set Requirements Note. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-xml-infoset-req- 19990218.html IOTP Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000. IOTP-DSig Davidson, K. and Y. Kawatsura, "Digital Signatures for the v1.0 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)", RFC 2802, April 2000. Oslo Minutes of the XML Signature WG Sessions at IETF face-to-face meeting in Oslo. RDF RDF Schema http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-rdf-schema-19990303 RDF Model and Syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222 Signature WG List http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf- xmldsig/ URI Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt WS (list, summary) XML-DSig '99: The W3C Signed XML Workshop http://www.w3.org/DSig/signed-XML99/ http://www.w3.org/DSig/signed-XML99/summary.html XLink XML Linking Language http://www.w3.org/1999/07/WD-xlink-19990726 XML Extensible Markup Language (XML) Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210 Reagle Informational [Page 7]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000 XML-C14N XML Canonicalization Requirements. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-xml-canonical-req- 19990605 XFA XML Forms Architecture (XFA) http://www.w3.org/Submission/1999/05/ XFDL Extensible Forms Description Language (XFDL) 4.0 http://www.w3.org/Submission/1998/16/ XML-Fragment XML-Fragment Interchange http://www.w3.org/1999/06/WD-xml-fragment- 19990630.html XML-namespaces Namespaces in XML http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114 XML-schema XML Schema Part 1: Structures http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-1/ XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-2/ XPointer XML Pointer Language (XPointer) http://www.w3.org/1999/07/WD-xptr-19990709 WebData Web Architecture: Describing and Exchanging Data. http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData
6. Acknowledgements
This document was produced as a collaborative work item of the XML Signature (xmldsig) Working Group. 7. Author's Address Joseph M. Reagle Jr., W3C XML Signature Co-Chiar Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science W3C, NE43-350 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 Phone: 1.617.258.7621 EMail: reagleasdfatw3.org URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle Reagle Informational [Page 8]
topRFC 2807 XML Signature Requirements July 2000
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2000 The Internet Society & W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Reagle Informational [Page 9]
Bookmark and Share