Hi Andrea!
Thank you very much!
I was afraid I was misunderstanding, thank you for the confirmation.
I will correct may work accordingly.
Best regards
Pedro Fernandes
DireÃÃo de Sistemas de InformaÃÃo
Rua Visconde de Seabra 3 | 1700-421 Lisboa | Tel: 212 469 549 (10549) | Fax: 212 469 541 | http://www.adp.pt
Tenha uma EcoAtitude.
Imprima este e-mail apenas se necessÃrio.
Esta mensagem e os ficheiros anexos podem conter informaÃÃo confidencial ou reservada. Se, por engano, receber esta mensagem, solicita-se que informe de imediato o remetente
e que elimine a mensagem e ficheiros anexos sem os reproduzir.
This message and any files herewith attached may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this message in error, please notify us immediately
and delete this message and any files attached without copying them in any way.
From: Andrea Caccia [mailto:]
Sent: 4 de junho de 2019 00:15
To:
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] FW: Urgent clarification regarding enveloped signature
Hi Pedro,
I think you are right, in the UBL-Invoice-2.0-Enveloped.xml if I look at this fragment:
<ext:UBLExtension xmlns:sig="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonSignatureComponents-2" xmlns:sac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:SignatureAggregateComponents-2" xmlns:sbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:SignatureBasicComponents-2">
<ext:ExtensionContent>
<sig:UBLDocumentSignatures>
<sac:SignatureInformation>
<ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" Id="addedSig">
the element:
<ext:ExtensionURI>urn:âoasis:ânames:âspecification:âubl:âdsig:âenveloped:âxades</ext:ExtensionURI>
is missing between <ext:UBLExtension> and <ext:ExtensionContent>
So as you already have found the text in 5.3.4.4 and 5.3.4.8 is indeed correct, in 5.4 the UBL-Invoice-2.0-Enveloped.xml must be corrected and in 6.2 in "...the <ext:Extension> element is present in the UBL extension..."
must be changed to "...the <ext:ExtensionURI> element is present in the UBL extension..."
Did I get all your points?
Thanks,
Andrea Caccia
Il giorno 3 giu 2019, alle ore 19:38, Pedro Fernandes <> ha scritto:
Just realized I made a mistake Reading.
In chapter 5.3.4.4 The Signature Information itâs
used an example without <ext:ExtensionURI>.
In chapter 5.3.4.8 A Signature Skeleton itâs
used another example without <ext:ExtensionURI>.
Of course <ext:ExtensionURI> itâs
not used because only <ext:ExtensionContent> is
the shown.
Iâm sorry about this mistake the other doubts remain.
Pedro Fernandes
DireÃÃo de Sistemas de InformaÃÃo
<image001.png>
Rua Visconde de Seabra 3 | 1700-421 Lisboa | Tel: 212 469 549 (10549) | Fax: 212 469 541 | http://www.adp.pt
<image002.png>
Tenha uma EcoAtitude. Imprima
este e-mail apenas se necessÃrio.
Esta mensagem e os ficheiros anexos podem conter informaÃÃo confidencial ou reservada. Se, por engano, receber esta mensagem, solicita-se que informe de imediato o remetente
e que elimine a mensagem e ficheiros anexos sem os reproduzir.
This message and any files herewith attached may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this message in error, please notify us immediately
and delete this message and any files attached without copying them in any way.
From: Pedro
Fernandes
Sent: 3 de junho de 2019 18:21
To:
Subject: Urgent clarification regarding enveloped signature
Hi all!
I was Reading documentation regarding digital signature in this link http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html#S-UBL-DIGITAL-SIGNATURES
In chapter 5.3.4.1 The Extension Metadata it
seems element <ext:ExtensionURI> with
value âurn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:dsig:envelopedâ is mandatory.
In chapter 5.3.4.4 The Signature Information itâs
used an example without <ext:ExtensionURI>.
In chapter 5.3.4.8 A Signature Skeleton itâs
used another example without <ext:ExtensionURI>.
In chapter 5.4 Digital Signature Examples itâs
used another example without <ext:ExtensionURI>.
In chapter 6.2 Digital Signature Conformance itâs
mentioned that âClaiming syntax conformance to the enveloped signature profile of UBL 2.1 requires (â) the <ext:Extension> element
is present in the UBL extension and has either urn:âoasis:ânames:âspecification:âubl:âdsig:âenveloped or urn:âoasis:ânames:âspecification:âubl:âdsig:âenveloped:âxades as
its valueâ.
My doubts:
If <ext:ExtensionURI> is
mandatory, was it forgotten in the examples? Are the examples right?
If for conformance reason <ext:Extension> is
required to have a value why is it never mentioned?
Is it a mistake and you really mean that <ext:ExtensionURI> is
required to have a value?
Are you considering that <ext:ExtensionURI> value
is <ext:Extension> value?
Please accept my apologies if this is just a misunderstanding from my part due to English not being my native language.
Best regards
Pedro Fernandes
DireÃÃo de Sistemas de InformaÃÃo
<image001.png>
Rua Visconde de Seabra 3 | 1700-421 Lisboa | Tel: 212 469 549 (10549) | Fax: 212 469 541 | http://www.adp.pt
<image002.png>
Tenha uma EcoAtitude. Imprima
este e-mail apenas se necessÃrio.
Esta mensagem e os ficheiros anexos podem conter informaÃÃo confidencial ou reservada. Se, por engano, receber esta mensagem, solicita-se que informe de imediato o remetente
e que elimine a mensagem e ficheiros anexos sem os reproduzir.
This message and any files herewith attached may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this message in error, please notify us immediately
and delete this message and any files attached without copying them in any way.
