Subject: [Geopriv] review of <draft-thomson-domain-auth-01.txt>

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:05:06 +0200

hi martin, hi james

i have a few questions regarding the content of this document. 
as a high-level statement i think that
- the terminology needs to be cleaned-up and aligned with the geopriv
terminology to improve readability. 
- the motivation for XML-DSIG and the individual signing of elements
needs to be given.
  just signing everything would be much simpler. using an s/mime
computed signature over the entire pdif-lo would also be better aligned
with the current geopriv work.  
- a motivation for signing location information by the "network" needs
to be provided (as we discussed during the interim meeting). 

i have only reviewed some parts of the document since the answers for
the questions raised above have significant  impact on the content of
the document. 

please find some minor comments inline. 

ciao
hannes

GEOPRIV WG                                                    M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                           J. Winterbottom
Expires: December 30, 2005                                        Nortel
                                                           June 28, 2005

                    Domain Authorization for PIDF-LO
                    draft-thomson-domain-auth-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes a standard method for digitally signing
   Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) documents
   using a subset of the XML Digital Signature specification.  A digital
   signature enables the user of a signed PIDF-LO document to attribute
   that information to an authorized source within the domain of the
   target entity.

[hannes] this sentence is difficult to understand. 

  A schema is defined for including a domain
   authorization element in the PIDF-LO and a set of XML Path Language
   (XPath) filters for selecting the correct elements for signing.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1   Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Domain Authorization Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1   'expires' attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Signature Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1   PIDF-LO Document Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2   Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3   Signature Key Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  XML Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1   XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2   XPath Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1   URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
           urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth  . . . . 17
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

1.  Introduction

   Users of location information may desire to be able to attribute this
   information to an authorized entity.  This entity may not have
   provided the information, but they must be able to vouch for its
   accuracy.  In most cases this will mean that the trusted entity
   resides within the same domain, or access network, as the target
   entity.

[hannes] i think that the only thing a network want to vouch for is that
they generated location  information. they cannot give any assurance
about the accuracy of the provided location information (and  might not
even want todo that) 

i think that the paragraph above needs to be rewritten 

   This specification describes a means by which a domain authority may
   assume responsibility for the validity of the location information
   provided in a Presence Information Data Format Location Object
   (PIDF-LO [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo]).  A standard form is described
   whereby a domain authority may digitally sign the PIDF-LO document.
   This signature ensures that a user of the PIDF-LO can verify that the
   presentity identified is at the described location within certain
   time bounds.

[hannes] since the term 'user of a location information/pdif-lo'
appeared several times i would like to  ask what it means. 

additionally, i think that the signature cannot provide an assurance
that a particular presentity was at  a particular location. 

   Only selected data are signed within a PIDF, allowing a user freedom
   to change other parts of the document without affecting the
   signature.

[hannes] why is this necessary? 

  A signature only applies to a single tuple element,
   allowing separate tuples to be unsigned, or to be signed separately.

[hannes] this seems to be very heavy-weight. 

   Elements such as notes, contact information and the privacy
   preferences described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo] are not signed to
   allow for modification.  The signed elements are restricted to:

   the presentity identifier: the entity attribute of the _presence_
      element.

   timestamp: the timestamp associated with the location information

   location-info: the actual location information

   expires: the time at which the signature expires, this datum is added
      by this specification

[hannes] the motivation for doing this is quite important since this
introduces a certain degree of  complexity, usage of XML-DSIG rather
than S/MIME. 

1.1  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The term _presentity_ is used as defined in RFC 2778 [RFC2778].

   The term _location user_ is used to refer to the entity that is
   consuming location information.  In the context of RFC 2778
   [RFC2778], the location user may be a watcher.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   The term _domain authority_ is used to refer to the entity that
   assumes responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided
   in the PIDF-LO.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

2.  The Domain Authorization Element

   This specification describes a new namespace for a domain
   authorization element.  This element contains the digital signature
   described in RFC 3275 [RFC3275] and an expiry time for the signature.

   The "domain-auth" element is added to the "tuple" element that
   contains the "geopriv" element.  Separate "tuple" elements are signed
   separately.  The XML Schema definition for the "domain-auth" element
   is included in Section 4.1.

   The digital signature signs the PIDF-LO document that includes only
   the "tuple" element that the "domain-auth" element is included
   within.  Section 3.1 describes the specific means by which the
   correct elements are selected.

2.1  'expires' attribute

   The "expires" attribute defines the expiry time for the domain
   authorization provided.  A user of the PIDF-LO document MUST consider
   the document to be unsigned beyond the expiry time.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

3.  Signature Elements

   The XML Signature specification [RFC3275] describes a means to sign
   XML documents.  The "Signature" element consists of three major
   parts:

   1.  a description of the signed elements, which may be an entire
       document, or selected parts of a document

   2.  a digital signature

   3.  information on the key used to sign the document

3.1  PIDF-LO Document Transform

   Since the content of XML documents is indeterminate based on similar
   data sets, RFC 3275 [RFC3275] describes a set of transforms that may
   be applied to a document before applying a digital signature.

   The input PIDF-LO document MUST be canonicalized using either
   Canonical XML ("http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315") or
   Exclusive Canonical XML
   ("http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/") [W3C.REC-
   xml-exc-c14n-20020718].  Note that both of these canonicalization
   methods remove comments from the source document.

   The signature form selected for this document is an enveloped
   signature.  Therefore the enveloped signature transform
   ("http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature") MUST be
   applied to the document.

   A filter is applied to the input document in order to select the
   correct elements for signing.  It is RECOMMENDED that the transformed
   document is also a valid PIDF-LO.  In addition, the transform should
   exclude "tuple" elements other than the element that is directly
   signed.  This ensures that other content may be included in other
   "tuple" elements, including other digital signatures.

   The following elements MUST be selected:

   o  the "presence" element, which includes the "entity" attribute

   o  the "location-info" element and all of its contents

   o  the "timestamp" element associated with the signed "tuple" element

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   o  the "domain-auth" element

   The minimum set of elements required to ensure that the signed
   document is a valid PIDF-LO SHOULD also be included.

   The XML Path Language (XPath) filter defined in Section 4.2 meets the
   above criteria.  For convenience, and to reduce the size of a signed
   PIDF-LO document, this transform may be identified by the URN
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth#PIDF-LO".

   Note that any elements from other namespaces included within the
   "domain-auth" element are selected by this XPath filter.  This
   ensures that additions to this element are covered by the digital
   signature.

3.2  Algorithms

   As recommended in RFC 3275 [RFC3275], implementations of this
   specification MUST provide the following algorithms:

   digest algorithm: The SHA1 digest, as identified by the URN
      "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1".

   signature algorithm: DSA with SHA1, as identified by the URN
      "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1".

   canonicalization method: Canonical XML [RFC3076], as identified by
      the URN "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315".

   transforms: The enveloped signature transform, as identified by the
      URN "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"; and
      the transform defined in Section 4.2, as identified by the URN
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth#PIDF-LO".

   It is also RECOMMENDED that the following are also supported:

   signature algorithm: PKCS1 (RSA-SHA1) signature algorithm, as
      idenfied by "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1".

   canonicalization method: Exclusive Canonical XML, as identified by
      the URN "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/"
      [W3C.REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718].

3.3  Signature Key Data

   RFC 3275 [RFC3275] describes a number of methods for describing the
   key used to sign the document.  For this specification, the "KeyInfo"

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   element MUST be provided in the "Signature" element.

   The domain authority MUST also describe a means to retrieve an X.509
   certificate that includes the key used to sign the document.  This
   can be either by including an "X509Certificate" element, or by
   referencing another certificate.

   A reference to a certificate within the same document may be made
   using the "X509SubjectName" element or a fragment identifier URI.  A
   fragment identifier URI might be applicable where multiple signatures
   are applied to different parts of the document.  External certificate
   sources SHOULD be described by URI only in the "RetrievalMethod"
   element.  It is RECOMMENDED that the scheme for the RetrievalMethod
   URI indicates a secure protocol, such as HTTPS.

   The domain authority MAY include additional information in the
   "KeyInfo" element that could assist the location user in validating
   the certificate.  For example a certificate chain and certificate
   revocation list may be added.  However, this specification does not
   specify how the location user validates the certificate.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

4.  XML Definitions

4.1  XML Schema

   The following XML schema describes the "domain-auth" element.  This
   schema defines a new namespace:
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth".

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth"
     xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth"
     xmlns:dsig="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
     elementFormDefault="unqualified"
     attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

     <xsd:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"/>

     <xsd:annotation>
       <xsd:documentation>
         This schema defines a means for providing authentication to a
         PIDF-LO.  This schema is also accompanied by a set of
         transforms that should be applied to the signed PIDF-LO.
       </xsd:documentation>
     </xsd:annotation>

     <xsd:element name="domain-auth">
       <xsd:annotation>
         <xsd:documentation>
           The domain authorization that is applied to the PIDF-LO.
           This element should be included within the scope of a
           &lt;tuple&gt; element.
         </xsd:documentation>
       </xsd:annotation>
       <xsd:complexType>
         <xsd:complexContent>
           <xsd:restriction base="xsd:anyType">
             <xsd:sequence>
               <xsd:element ref="dsig:Signature"/>
               <xsd:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
             </xsd:sequence>

             <xsd:attribute name="expires" use="required"
                            type="xsd:dateTime">
               <xsd:annotation>
                 <xsd:documentation>
                   The expiry time associated with the authorization.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005             [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

                 </xsd:documentation>
               </xsd:annotation>
             </xsd:attribute>

           </xsd:restriction>
         </xsd:complexContent>
       </xsd:complexType>
     </xsd:element>

   </xsd:schema>

4.2  XPath Filter

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   The following XPath transform follows the recommendations in RFC 3275
   [RFC3275] to select the elements for signing.  This specification
   defines a new URN for this transform:
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth#PIDF-LO".

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <dsig:Transform id="PIDF-LO"
      Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116"
      xmlns:dsig="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
     <dsig:XPath
      xmlns:pidf="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
      xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
      xmlns:da="urn:urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth">
   <!-- Select elements -->
   (
   <!-- The enclosing presence element -->
   ((count(self::pidf:presence | here()/ancestor::pidf:presence[1]) = 1)
   <!-- The enclosing pidf:tuple element -->
    or (count(self::pidf:tuple | here()/ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]) = 1)
   <!-- enclosing()/pidf:tuple with the following portions ... -->
    or ((count(ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]
         | here()/ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]) = 1)
   <!-- ... pidf:status, pidf:status/pidf:timestamp[/text()] -->
        and (self::pidf:status or ancestor-or-self::pidf:timestamp
   <!-- ... gp:geopriv, gp:usage-rules -->
             or self::gp:geopriv or self::gp:usage-rules
   <!-- ... gp:location-info and descendants -->
             or ancestor-or-self::gp:location-info))
   <!-- the enclosing da:domain-auth element -->
    or (count(self::da:domain-auth
        | here()/ancestor::da:domain-auth[1]) = 1)
   ) or (
   <!-- Select attributes and xmlns for those elements -->
     (count(self::node() | parent::*/attribute::*
            | parent::*/namespace::*)
        &lt; (count(self::node()) + count(parent::*/attribute::*)
           + count(parent::*/namespace::*)))
   and parent::*[
   <!-- Repeat of element selection -->
   ((self::pidf:presence and (count(ancestor::pidf:presence) = 0))
    or (count(self::pidf:tuple | here()/ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]) = 1)
    or ((count(ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]
         | here()/ancestor::pidf:tuple[1]) = 1)
        and (self::pidf:status
             or self::gp:geopriv or self::gp:usage-rules))
    or (count(self::da:domain-auth
        | here()/ancestor::da:domain-auth[1]) = 1))
   ])
     </dsig:XPath>
   </dsig:Transform>

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

5.  Examples

   A sample, demonstrating a simple form of the signed PIDF-LO document
   is shown below.

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <presence entity="pres:[email-masked]"
             xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
             xmlns:gml="http://opengis.net/gml"
             xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10">
     <tuple id="pidflo1a786c3">
       <status>
         <gp:geopriv>
           <gp:location-info>
             <gml:position>
               <gml:Point srsName="urn:EPSG:geographicCRS:4979">
                 <gml:pos>-34.407 150.88001 34</gml:pos>
               </gml:Point>
             </gml:position>
           </gp:location-info>
           <gp:usage-rules>
             <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed>
             <gp:retention-expiry>
               2004-12-01T21:28:43+10:00
             </gp:retention-expiry>
           </gp:usage-rules>
         </gp:geopriv>
       </status>
       <da:domain-auth
           expires="2005-05-18T15:28:58.061+10:00"
           xmlns:da="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth">
         <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
           <ds:SignedInfo>
   <ds:CanonicalizationMethod
     Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315"/>
   <ds:SignatureMethod
     Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/>
   <ds:Reference URI="">
   <ds:Transforms>
   <ds:Transform
     Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"/>
   <ds:Transform
   Algorithm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth#PIDF-LO"
     />
   </ds:Transforms>
   <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/>
   <ds:DigestValue>bKlPmI0oKdmq24c4lV8jlL533K8=</ds:DigestValue>
   </ds:Reference>

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   </ds:SignedInfo>
           <ds:SignatureValue>
             iaEl9uK3VjpYci3oF+uyVmB12SA2HEsuJu8TtkwDcJ6f08B6uUll7gqm
             UsxBvY9tH8ijJsesKJQf/tKQxhmOrg2TfG7/0MOjagrtJglna5YaH1co
             LAMWlhb+iCMHvkAGxB+2cVr2Qsf6Fo0nw8qNHzswB2NwMFq1lCnaxYhY
             /fI=
           </ds:SignatureValue>
           <ds:KeyInfo>
             <ds:X509Data>
               <ds:X509Certificate>
                 MIICPjCCAacCBEKCkPQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwZjELMAkGA1UE
                 BhMCQVUxDDAKBgNVBAgTA05TVzETMBEGA1UEBxMKV29sbG9uZ29u
                 ZzEPMA0GA1UEChMGTm9ydGVsMRQwEgYDVQQLEwtJUCBMb2NhdGlv
                 bjENMAsGA1UEAxMEdGVzdDAeFw0wNTA1MTEyMzEwNDRaFw0wNTA4
                 MDkyMzEwNDRaMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMQwwCgYDVQQIEwNOU1cx
                 EzARBgNVBAcTCldvbGxvbmdvbmcxDzANBgNVBAoTBk5vcnRlbDEU
                 MBIGA1UECxMLSVAgTG9jYXRpb24xDTALBgNVBAMTBHRlc3QwgZ8w
                 DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAMgbk4ZIQqcsJp307Ooj
                 bgtEeP8dzvyDLAhyGyb/iFBH3cGXJUBTsD+1kSGuK1VA+ENhCbU0
                 kHHYW0WLd7HbLoUnDcZqE1B5SoLsUA8n9wEW1BvfDj3A03Z+MRMV
                 +ARWYqMHO8qdwGfIHP3/vrw67vNznZBE+18qk9Mi8EqqqpmfAgMB
                 AAEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAtNmqmkcvpaMT+4l3pZ+eJba1
                 W2qgkjaWScxOUDznbAFW6hk1A9eL+Z91Fr025QPbT8cOiCY10mg5
                 wf6Yf027Z5354an2eZLiPm33FTu1yhI4XlLNa/BtbdFnuiB4N/Sn
                 dvm1fy9uWvfiV8ayO/OsyaGjWfM1+z4kwZZH5c9LJMQ=
               </ds:X509Certificate>
             </ds:X509Data>
           </ds:KeyInfo>
         </ds:Signature>
       </da:domain-auth>
       <note>
         This note may be changed without affecting the signature.
       </note>
       <timestamp>2005-05-18T15:03:39.362+10:00</timestamp>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   Note that the digest and signatures are only included to serve as an
   example.  Several elements are included in the above example that
   should not be signed by the domain authority, as described in
   Section 3.1, in particular "usage-rules" and "note-well".

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   The transform described in Section 3.1 removes extraneous elements,
   resulting in the following PIDF-LO, which only includes the signed
   elements (in this example whitespace has been added for readability):

   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
             xmlns:gml="http://opengis.net/gml"
             xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
             entity="pres:[email-masked]">
     <tuple id="pidflo1a786c3">
       <status>
         <gp:geopriv>
           <gp:location-info>
             <gml:position>
               <gml:Point srsName="urn:EPSG:geographicCRS:4979">
                 <gml:pos>-34.407 150.88001 34</gml:pos>
               </gml:Point>
             </gml:position>
           </gp:location-info>
           <gp:usage-rules>
           </gp:usage-rules>
         </gp:geopriv>
       </status>
       <da:domain-auth
           xmlns:da="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth"
           expires="2005-05-18T15:28:58.061+10:00"></da:domain-auth>
       <timestamp>2005-05-18T15:03:39.362+10:00</timestamp>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

6.  Security Considerations

   The security limitations of this specification are no more
   significant than those already identified in RFC 3275 [RFC3275]. 

[hannes] hmm. what is the implication? 

 In
   particular the rules *Only What is Signed is Secure*,

[hannes] 'secure' is a big word. maybe it would be good to be a bit more
specific. 

 *Only What is
   "Seen" Should be Signed*,

[hannes] only what is seen can be signed 

 and *"See" What is Signed* SHOULD be
   applied.

[hannes] i think we should be a bit more specific about the entity that
are involved and the role they  play.

   It is RECOMMENDED that where certitude of information is important
   that only the signed information is transmitted or stored, that is,
   the PIDF-LO document formed by performing the transform described in
   Section 3.1.  This ensures that no additional information may be
   misconstrued as being verifiable.  This is particular applicable if
   the contents of the PIDF-LO document are displayed on screen.

   A degree of trust must exist between the domain authority and the
   location user.  It is the responsibility of the location user to
   verify the identity of the domain authority and assert the
   appropriate level of trust.  If the location user is unable to
   validate the identity of the domain authority for any reason, then
   the PIDF-LO document MUST be considered unsigned.

[hannes] i always suggest not to use the term 'trust' since it makes
things just fuzzy. 

[hannes] the main assumption here is that the entity that finally
processes the location information and  verifies the digital signature
is able to determine that the entity that signed it is indeed
authoritive  to provide this information. 

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
     urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth

   This document registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
   [RFC3688].

   URI: The URI for this namespace is
     urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth
   Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, ([email-masked]),
     Martin Thomson ([email-masked]).
   XML:
       BEGIN
       <?xml version="1.0"?>
       <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
                 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
       <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
         <head>
           <title>GEOPRIV Domain Authorization Extensions</title>
         </head>
         <body>
           <h1>Domain Authorization Extensions</h1>
           <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:domain-auth</h2>
           <p>See <a href="[[[URL of published RFC]]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
         </body>
       </html>
       END

8.  References

[hannes] separate into normative & informative part. 

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2778]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for
              Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [RFC3076]  Boyer, J., "Canonical XML Version 1.0", RFC 3076,
              March 2001.

   [RFC3275]  Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
              Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275,
              March 2002.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

Thomson & Winterbottom    Expires December 30, 2005            [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                Domain Auth.                     June 2005

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo]
              Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
              Format", draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03 (work in progress),
              September 2004.

   [W3C.REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718]
              3rd, D., Boyer, J., and J. Reagle, "Exclusive XML
              Canonicalization Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n-
              20020718, July 2002.

~snip~

ciao
hannes



_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv