Title: Message
I concur with Claus’ well-put thoughts.
The task of dealing with the signatures
that Claus mentions is not a small one. The heavy lifting of the design work of
V3 in this respect was coming up with an appropriate canonicalization algorithm
for XML-schema-specified XML (in the ASN.1 world this is in analogy to the
specification of the Distinguished (binary) Encoding Rules as opposed to the
Basic Encoding Rules). This algorithm is hand-in-glove intimate with the
expressivity of XML-schema (as were the DER with respect to the expressivity of
BER). Unless XML Schema and XML-encoded-ASN.1 were entirely isomorphic (which would
astound me, but I admit I do not know for certain that they are not), then
defining ASN.1 equivalents of the UDDI v3 XML schemas than when XML Encoded and
canonicalized by ASN.1-derivied algorithms manages to preserve the signature
will be a Herculean task.
Shishir: Not that I’ve looked
(sorry), but it is even the case that all UDDI v2 XML instances which are valid
according to the UDDI v2 XML Schema definitions are in fact valid according to
the XML Encoding Rules (Basic or otherwise) of the sample ASN.1 schemas for
UDDI v2 that you provided? That is can we take reliably data produced according
to the XML Schema mechanism and validate it according the ASN.1-derived
mechanism? Can we reliably do it the other way around?
Thanks.
Bob
From: Von Riegen,
Claus [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:19 AM
To: 'GARG Shishir / FTR&D /
US'; ''
Shishir,
Thanks for the details on ASN.1.
However, adding a
notation alternative to XML Schema and a protocol alternative to SOAP/HTTP
to the set of UDDI Version 2 specifications at this point in time seems not to
be appropriate to me. There are other schema notations, such as RELAX NG, and
other protocols, such as HTTP w/o SOAP, we could also consider, but we always
limited our scope to the most common ones so far.
I'm not saying that it is not useful to
propose alternatives, but since alternative schema notations and
protocols should note change UDDI's core, I'd rather like to see them
added layered on top of the UDDI specifications, for example, by starting with
a technical note.
Also, since we are also in the process to
finalize UDDI Version 3, any alternatives should also work with this version.
The issue with the mapping of W3C XML Digital Signatures to ASN.1 that came up
yesterday should be one of the first items to be resolved in a Technical Note.
Regards,
Claus
-----Original Message-----
From: GARG Shishir / FTR&D /
US [mailto:]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. März 2003 02:55
To:
''
Cc: DUBUISSON Olivier
FTRD/DTL/LAN; 'Rajul Gupta'; 'Paul Thorpe'; 'Bancroft Scott'; 'Alexandru
Czimbor'; CAHUZAC Maud / FTR&D / US
Subject: [uddi-spec] ASN.1
notation as an alternative to XML Schema proposal
Hello
folks,
As
discussed briefly on today's call, here are the initial documents to get the
discussion going. The doc file contains a description of what is in this
proposal, along with a few examples to make the case clear.
We are
not necessarily aiming to make it to the V2 specification (since it was just
sent to the OASIS board for review), but we are not sure if it should just
become a Technical Note and be left at that.
Lets look
for all the feedback we can get on this proposal.
Regards,
Shishir GARG.
France Telecom R&D
650.875.1540
Attached:
Overview doc + UDDI V2 converted schemas
