Subject: [KEYPROV] [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

From: "Philip Hoyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:16:53 +0200

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please find attached the latest PSKC draft in xml and .txt form
including the latest schema and a list of changes.

Missing bits are:

*	Decision to use schema derivation for KeyProperties from KeyBase
(please see other email) current proposed schema does just introduce a
new XML type called KeyProperties without using schema derivation (I am
proposing not to use it and leave as in current proposal and attached
schema)
*	Should we use String or bas64binary for unencrypted
values.(maybe leave as is to maintain compatibility with -03 version)
*	Phillip Hallam Bakers section for IANA registry for the Data
semantics
*	Some outstanding clarification on Andrea's comments.

The rest has been addressed.

Please note that currently unless you used CardAppPersoProfileId the
spec is functionally (message) compatible with the one in version -03

Unless you have major comments I like to submit this ASAP.

Philip

________________________________

Philip Hoyer 

Senior Architect - Office of CTO

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7744 6248

Direct: +44 (0) 20 7744 6455

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7744 6249

Private and confidential: This message and any attachments may contain

privileged / confidential information. If you are not an intended
recipient,

you must not copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on
it.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender

and delete this message immediately.

_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:55:58 -0700

A first draft of the XML tag registry is attached. It still needs some work to motivate it correctly.

Ooops, just saw one error, the heading to my IANA section shoud be
<section title="Symmetric Key Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Registry">

PSKC is not restricted to OTP of course, the registry should not be either.

From: Philip Hoyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Fri 18/04/2008 12:16 PM
To: Pei, Mingliang; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [email-masked]; Turner, Sean P.; [email-masked]
Subject: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please find attached the latest PSKC draft in xml and .txt form including the latest schema and a list of changes.

Missing bits are:

*	Decision to use schema derivation for KeyProperties from KeyBase (please see other email) current proposed schema does just introduce a new XML type called KeyProperties without using schema derivation (I am proposing not to use it and leave as in current proposal and attached schema) 
*	Should we use String or bas64binary for unencrypted values.(maybe leave as is to maintain compatibility with -03 version) 
*	Phillip Hallam Bakers section for IANA registry for the Data semantics 
*	Some outstanding clarification on Andrea's comments. 

Please note that currently unless you used CardAppPersoProfileId the spec is functionally (message) compatible with the one in version -03

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

privileged / confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient,

you must not copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender

---

From: "Pei, Mingliang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:57:10 -0700

In the IANA section shall we use the same URI for the schema that we
have early defined (see schema section)? 
 
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyprov:container:1.0
 
vs
 
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pskc1
 
I am fine with the algorithm URIs in registration section. We need to
add ones for "KeyContainer" and "PIN" type.
 
We need to change examples and schema section to match the registration
section. I can make those changes by next Monday if you can hold on
submission. Please comment on the schema URI choice.
 
Thanks,
 
- Ming

From: Philip Hoyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Pei, Mingliang; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes
Tschofenig
Cc: [email-masked]; Turner, Sean P.; [email-masked]
Subject: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: "Philip Hoyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:32:24 +0200

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please find attached the latest version of PSKC.

I made the changes requested by Ming and added Phillip Hallam Bakers XML
tag registration IANA part,

If you do not have objections I would like to submit this COB today,

Philip

From: Pei, Mingliang [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 3:57 AM
To: Philip Hoyer; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes
Tschofenig
Cc: [email-masked]; Turner, Sean P.; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:46:45 -0400

I've been wrapped up recently and haven't had time to devote to this. I'd
say post and then we can figure out if anything else needs to be changed in
the next go around.
 
spt

  _____  

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:32 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I made the changes requested by Ming and added Phillip Hallam Bakers XML tag
registration IANA part,

Philip

  _____  

To: Philip Hoyer; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes Tschofenig

In the IANA section shall we use the same URI for the schema that we have
early defined (see schema section)? 

vs

I am fine with the algorithm URIs in registration section. We need to add
ones for "KeyContainer" and "PIN" type.

Thanks,

- Ming

  _____  

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please find attached the latest PSKC draft in xml and .txt form including
the latest schema and a list of changes.

Missing bits are:

*	Decision to use schema derivation for KeyProperties from KeyBase
(please see other email) current proposed schema does just introduce a new
XML type called KeyProperties without using schema derivation (I am
proposing not to use it and leave as in current proposal and attached
schema) 

*	Should we use String or bas64binary for unencrypted values.(maybe
leave as is to maintain compatibility with -03 version) 

Please note that currently unless you used CardAppPersoProfileId the spec is
functionally (message) compatible with the one in version -03

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: "Pei, Mingliang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:02:53 -0700

Hi Philip,
 
Thank you for making changes. The HOTP URI hasn't been changed in
examples and there is consistency issue, I think. 
 
In IANA section 9.4, HOTP is defined as:
 
9.4.4.1.  HOTP
 
   Common Name:  HOTP
 
   Class:  OTP
 
   URI:  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4226.txt
 
In section 6.3, HOTP is defined as
 
6.3.1.1.  HOTP
 
   Standard document: RFC4226
 
   Identifier: http://www.ietf.org/keyprov/pskc#hotp

All examples refer HOTP algorithm by that in 6.3.1.1.
 
A quick fix is to change 9.4.4.1 to match 6.3.1.1.
 
I would like to hear Phil's preference about the URI choice. Phillip?
Thanks.
 
- Ming

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:32 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Philip

 

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:19:01 -0400

Ming and Philip,
Thanks for the update.
Do you happen to have an updated .xsd file that I could use?  Was the
version of the schema in the latest draft validated?
Thanks,
Andrea

From: Pei, Mingliang [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:03 PM
To: Philip Hoyer; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes
Tschofenig
Cc: Doherty, Andrea; Turner, Sean P.; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

Hi Philip,

 
9.4.4.1.  HOTP
 
   Common Name:  HOTP
 
   Class:  OTP

 
6.3.1.1.  HOTP

 

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Philip

 

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: "Philip Hoyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:00:54 +0200

All,

I have just made the change suggested by Ming for the HOTP URI to be
consistent with the example and submitted it (see attached
acknowledgement) 

Please find attached the -04 version of the draft and the related xml
and schema.

Philip

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:03 PM

Hi Philip,

9.4.4.1.  HOTP

   Common Name:  HOTP

   Class:  OTP

6.3.1.1.  HOTP

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Philip

 

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

Subject: Re: New version of keyprov PSKC internet draft
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Philip Hoyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:58:42 +0200

Greetings:

This message is being sent to acknowledge receipt of your Internet-Draft
submission or message to [email-masked].  

Since the Secretariat receives a large number of Internet-Drafts in the
week preceding the cutoff date for updated submissions, your document may 
not be processed and announced for a number of days.  Our goal is to 
process and announce all valid pre-meeting Internet-Draft submissions
within five business days at the latest.  If you need to track the status 
of your Internet-Draft submission, then please send a note to 
[email-masked] (using the suggested subject line Status of 
I-D Submission: <filename>) and reference this auto-response acknowledgement 
in the body.

Please note that all Internet-Drafts offered for publication as RFCs 
must conform to the requirements specified in the ID-Checklist 
(http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html) or they will be returned to the
author(s) for revision.  Therefore, the IETF Secretariat strongly recommends 
that you address all of the issues raised in this document before submitting 
a request to publish your Internet-Draft to the IESG.

Thank you,
The IETF Secretariat

---

From: "Pei, Mingliang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:44:08 -0700

The one that Philip sent in the last email is good. I have validated it
against PSKC examples. You need to replace the xmlenc file location when
you use it.
 
- Ming 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:19 AM
To: Pei, Mingliang; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Hallam-Baker, Phillip;
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

Ming and Philip,
Thanks for the update.

Hi Philip,

 
9.4.4.1.  HOTP
 
   Common Name:  HOTP
 
   Class:  OTP

 
6.3.1.1.  HOTP

 

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Philip

 

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL

---

From: "Pei, Mingliang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:27:16 -0700

A few comments on use cases:
 
- I believe that use case 3.1.2 (user key migration between devices)
should belong to "offline" category
- Should use case 3.1.3 (user key upload) belong to both online and
offline case? I think so.
 
- Ming

From: Philip Hoyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:01 AM
To: Pei, Mingliang; Salah Machani; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes
Tschofenig; [email-masked]; Turner, Sean P.; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pskc] Latest draft of PSKC

All,

Philip

Hi Philip,

9.4.4.1.  HOTP

   Common Name:  HOTP

   Class:  OTP

6.3.1.1.  HOTP

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Philip

 

vs

Thanks,

- Ming

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Missing bits are:

Philip

Philip Hoyer 

ActivIdentity (UK)

109 Borough High Street

London SE1 1NL