XML Encryption WG

Participants

Registration for FTF closed.
Davis's "Sign Then Encrypt" Paper is publically available, Reagle will send a proposal for a requirement.

Fairly complete editors' draft available, the Technical Report version and the Decryption Signature Transform will be published tomorrow (Tuesday).

Reagle: Raised in xmldsig, but also relevant here: Schema WG is still looking into the base64 issue -- and I'm continuing to pester them.
Reagle: Supposed to resolve questions of DigestMethod and DigestValue in CipherData. Dependent on Schaad: re-engaging Herzberg on list.
Eastlake: Proposed using a nonce. (Present in KeyAgreement, do we need it more generally? -- Reagle).
Eastlake: send to a proposal for a nonce attribute to salt the data being encrypted if that instance's schema permits nonces to be added.

...

PlainData
Eastlake: I think he's trying to make it easier to denote what should be encrypted -- and make it clear that the DigestMethod and DigestValue apply to the plaintext not the ciphertext.

Reagle: I hope it's clear in the spec that DigestValue is over the plaintext. Otherwise this seems like an application issue to me (how it internally designates which sections to process)? I asked him to explain it a bit more on the list, so we'll roll this forward.
Processing CipherData (what is returned?)
Simon: it's the octet sequence that you would hand off to the encryption sequence. Also, there's the small topic of the "default behaviour" with respect to processing (e.g., replacing) EncryptedData in an instance.

Dillaway: we're not to far off on this, can discuss and go through the scenarios at the FTF.

Simon: also in Takeshi's about the difference between octets representing XML and Canonical XML, but we need more discussion on the list to properly understand.
Reagle: comments on the Latest Algorithm Section?
Eastlake: not much yet.
Reagle: FTF -- since things are running fairly smoothly, we should take advantage of the time. I doubt we could do a last call and get all comments prior to the face to face (since last call implies the WG feels it has addressed all issues and has consensus) but we should solicit the wider community for comments; and if folks are interested in doing early interop, we should get a head start on that as well!