bdxr — archive

[Sander Fieten]

Hi all, as discussed on last weeks call I would take a look at the use of the Certificate Type Codes todo item. I checked the current document and these type codes are currently used / referenced in §2.2.5 PMode.Responder.Party, §2.2.36 PMode[1].Security.X509.Encryption.Certificate and §5.2 The use of multiple Access Point certificates with SMP 2.0.  Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.36 only defined one code specific for signing or encryption, but not one for the scenario where one certificate is used for both (which I guess is the most common usage scenario). In the attached document I have included some first proposals how we could integrate the definition of the code list for certificate types. To prevent duplicating text and to keep it readable, I introduced a separate section in chapter 2 to define the code list and referred to this new section from the other ones. Happy to hear your comments! Groet, Regards, Sander Fieten T: +31 6 51 50 78 86                        skype: sfieten W: www.chasquis-consulting.com Holodeck B2B AS4 eDelivery Consultancy On 07/09/2021 22:34, Kenneth Bengtsson wrote: Agenda for Pacific BDXR TC call 07 September 2021 23:00UTC http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=2021-09-01T15:00:00 Pacific: 18:00MSP/01:00Europe/19:00Ottawa/23:00UTC/09:00Sydney Conferencing info Meeting ID: 547 975 473 Passcode: oasis Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/547975473?pwd=bjVvdDhDcEZXZ3R3cldRYkpuQU13Zz09 Or iPhone one-tap (US toll): +13462487799,,547975473#,,,,,,0#,,130346# US (Houston) +16465588656,,547975473#,,,,,,0#,,130346# US (New York) Or international dial-in number (toll): https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kchtpYJm7L Meeting ID: 547 975 473 Passcode: 130346 Standing items TC Vitality The TC must next appoint or reappoint chair(s) in January 2023. Next TC vitality check must be made in January 2025. Review of Pacific call minutes https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202108/msg00001.html Review of Atlantic call minutes https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202107/msg00008.html Membership status review https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#membership Voting status is determined by the following: - existing voting members must not miss two consecutive meetings to maintain voting status - non-voting members must attend two consecutive meetings to obtain voting status - members formally on leave by prior request must not attend and their voting status is not impacted Current BDXR TC voting member list (alphabetical): - Todd Albers - Kenneth Bengtsson - Erlend Klakegg Bergheim - Kees Duvekot - Sander Fieten - Levine Naidoo Members gaining voting status after this meeting: - Dennis Weddig Members losing voting status after this meeting: - Levine Naidoo AS4 profile for four-corner networks The 30-day public review of AS4 Interoperability Profile for Four-corner Networks Version 1.0 CSD01 closed on July 23, 2021 with no comments received. To do list: - PMode.Responder.Party: What should the sending access point do if it can’t validate the signature of a received signal message? o Agreed to remove the statement “ The sending Access Point SHOULD verify that the value of the Subject CN field of the certificate used to sign the Receipt Signal Message is identical to the PMode.Responder.Party ID.” - Add Certificate/TypeCode codes for encryption and encryption+signing. o Sander will look at this for next week - Code list and documentation for Certificate/TypeCode. - Multiple payloads o Not needed for now - Standardize Endpoint/TransportProfileID o bdxr-as4-1.0[#NetworkPolicyID] o Kenneth to make a proposal for next week Overview of the four-corner model Committee Note During work with BDXL 1.1, Sander and Kenneth identified that elements of the text (describing the four-corner model, its components and its actors) would perhaps be better suited for a broader Committee Note. An early (incomplete) draft has been uploaded here, for discussion in the TC: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=68197&wg_abbrev=bdxr The TC continues to review the committee note draft. BDXL BDXL 1.0 A ticket was created pointing out an issue with regular expressions in the BDXL 1.0 examples. It was agreed at the TC meeting November 25 to focus on BDXL 1.1 first, and then look at a possible BDXL 1.0 errata after that. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/BDXR-29 BDXL administration API Proposal from Erlend: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/201905/msg00015.html There have been discussions within Peppol regarding requirements for the BDXL Administration API. Sander will reach out to the involved participants to gather further requirements. Agreed that the updated BDXL 1.1 specification will mention the BDXL Administration API and its features for updating and maintaining BDXL records. Discussed that the BDXL Administration API could include a section for how to update a primary BDXL in a federated model. Steps forward: 1) Map the API interface from the existing specification previously submitted to the TC (Kenneth) 2) Describing functionality (group) 3) Work on XML and JSON bindings (Sander, Dennis and Kenneth) Kenneth presented a map of the Peppol SML registration interface as well as a class diagram showing the data model. It was discussed that the data model for the BDXL administration API may need to be developed in parallel to the API if special functions such as batch updating (“grouping” participants with services) need to be supported. Diagrams used for discussions: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202007/msg00017.html . Discussed whether NAPTR records other than “U”-flag records are allowed in BDXL 1.0, and whether redirect type NAPTR records can be used as a strategy. Agreed that we need to advance further with the updated BDXL specification before moving forward with the API. It was agreed at the August 12 TC meeting that the introductory sentence in section 2.2 (normative), which states that “Because the goal is to find URLs, the NAPTR RR with “U” value in its Flags field (U-NAPTR)” narrows the scope of U-NAPTR records in the specification to those with “U”-flags, and that “U-NAPTR” elsewhere in the specification consequently refers to only those NAPTR records with “U”-flags. BDXL 1.1 Starter document received from OASIS: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202002/msg00015.html Discussed that the hostname to look up the NAPTR record (commonly done as “BASE32([SHA256 hash of participant ID])” and “B-[MD5 hash of participant ID]”) should be standardized. Federated SML Agreed to add a section about BDXL network federation to BDXL 1.1. Both Peppol and the Business Payment Coalition are working towards federated BDXL designs. BPC rationale is to create competition among several BDXL service providers, allowing network participants to freely choose among available services. All BDXL services will offer similar and compatible services. Requirements: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202006/msg00003.html Peppol is looking at delegating control of different participant identifier schemes to different SML services, as well as possibly separating groups of participants based on their ID. There would be an algorithm that enables APs to locate the appropriate SML service based on the calculation of the participant identifier. Part of the rationale is that the transactional footprint on the current SML has increased with the addition of DNSSEC, and grouping participants into different SML services is a strategy for distributing the load. Discussion paper for multiple registration services with only one DNS provider: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202006/msg00003.html Discussed that in DNS, zone changes are replicated from primary DNS to secondary DNS services through zone transfers and that the update of primary DNS services can be done using DNS Update: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2136 Sander and Kenneth had a meeting to come up with a proposal for an architectural drawing of a federated BDXL model within the complete 4-corner network. The outcome is shared here: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr/202007/msg00010.html Discussed that the BDXL specification could/should hold information about the current registrar service of a given participant, so that BDXL and registrar services can prevent unauthorized updates of participant identifiers registered through a different registrar service. Discussed to include a non-normative section describing different network policies and approached to KYC and participant registration. Kenneth will begin drafting an introduction for BDXL 1.1. TC conference call schedule Face-to-face meeting Should we schedule online work sessions to replace the face-to-face meeting? Call schedule 2021-09-07/2021-09-08 - Pacific: 18:00MSP/01:00Europe/19:00Ottawa/23:00UTC/09:00Sydney - Atlantic: 10:00MSP/11:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/17:00Europe 2021-09-14/2021-09-15 - Pacific: 18:00MSP/01:00Europe/19:00Ottawa/23:00UTC/09:00Sydney - Atlantic: 10:00MSP/11:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/17:00Europe 2021-09-21/2021-09-22 - Pacific: 18:00MSP/01:00Europe/19:00Ottawa/23:00UTC/09:00Sydney - Atlantic: 10:00MSP/11:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/17:00Europe 2021-09-28/2021-09-29 - Pacific: 18:00MSP/01:00Europe/19:00Ottawa/23:00UTC/09:00Sydney - Atlantic: 10:00MSP/11:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/17:00Europe Other business As comes forward Attachment: bdx-as4-v1.0-csd01-cert-codes.docx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document