Paul,
I believe the industry standard for XML documents is XML Signature.
Paul Thorpe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the last UBL NDRSC phone call I promised to send more information about
> the use of digital signatures in all UBL documents. I agree with David
> Burdett that an optional field should be added to all UBL documents, but
> believe the industry standard X.509 based signatures should be used. The
> reason I suggest this is that this does not require you to preserve binary
> content of what was signed. Anyone who wishes to authenticate the
> signature can recreate that binary content when they need to do the
> authentication since DER (Distinguished Encoding Rules) is truely
> canonical (has exactly one way of encoding any given message).
>
> Note that even Canonical-XML requires you to preserve the namespace
> prefixes that were in the XML tags, so you would really need to preserve
> the complete XML document (tags with prefixes and all) along with the
> signature in order to authenticate it if you directly sign the XML
> document.
>
> By making the field optional, no one is required to use the digital
> signatures, but can if they wish to.
>
> This optional signature field should placed in the schema immediately
> before or after the global element whose contents need authentication.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul E. Thorpe Toll Free : 1-888-OSS-ASN1
> OSS Nokalva International: 1-732-302-0750
> Email: Tech Support : 1-732-302-9669
> http://www.oss.com Fax : 1-732-302-0023
>
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc. | 1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
