WDIFF

draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-09.txt --> rfc4051.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E.

Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 4051 Motorola Laboratories
Expires: March
Category: Standards Track April 2005 September 2004

Additional XML Security URIs
---------- --- -------- ----
<draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-09.txt>

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

Status of This Document
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

Distribution of this Memo

This document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
to the author. Internet-Drafts are working documents of specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, community, and its working groups.
Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid requests discussion and suggestions for a maximum
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of six months the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
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 a "work in progress."

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

The list this protocol. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

A number of URIs Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) intended for use with
XML Digital Signatures, Encryption, and Canonnicalization Canonicalization are defined.
These URIs identify algorithms and types of keying information.

Acknowledgements

Glenn Adams, Merlin Hughs, Gregor Karlinger, Brian LaMachia, Shiho
Moriai, Joseph Reagle, Russ Housley, and Joel Halpern.

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

Table of Contents

Status of This Document....................................1
Abstract...................................................1
Acknowledgements...........................................1

Table of Contents..........................................2

1. Introduction............................................3 Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Algorithms..............................................4
2.1 Algorithms.................................................... 3
2.1. DigestMethod Algorithms................................4
2.1.1 MD5..................................................4
2.1.2 SHA-224..............................................4
2.1.3 SHA-384..............................................5
2.2 Algorithms................................. 3
2.1.1. MD5............................................. 3
2.1.2. SHA-224......................................... 3
2.1.3. SHA-384......................................... 4
2.2. SignatureMethod Message Authentication Code Algorithms.5
2.2.1 HMAC-MD5.............................................5
2.2.2 Algorithms.. 4
2.2.1. HMAC-MD5........................................ 4
2.2.2. HMAC SHA Variations..................................6
2.2.3 HMAC-RIPEMD160.......................................7
2.3 Variations............................. 5
2.2.3. HMAC-RIPEMD160.................................. 6
2.3. SignatureMethod Public Key Signature Algorithms........7
2.3.1 RSA-MD5..............................................7
2.3.2 RSA-SHA256...........................................8
2.3.3 RSA-SHA384...........................................8
2.3.4 RSA-SHA512...........................................9
2.3.5 RSA-RIPEMD160........................................9
2.3.6 ECDSA-SHA*...........................................9
2.3.7 ESIGN-SHA1...........................................9
2.4 Algorithms......... 6
2.3.1. RSA-MD5......................................... 6
2.3.2. RSA-SHA256...................................... 7
2.3.3. RSA-SHA384...................................... 7
2.3.4. RSA-SHA512...................................... 7
2.3.5. RSA-RIPEMD160................................... 8
2.3.6. ECDSA-SHA*...................................... 8
2.3.7. ESIGN-SHA1...................................... 8
2.4. Minimal Canonicalization..............................10
2.5 Canonicalization................................ 9
2.5. Transform Algorithms..................................10
2.5.1 XPointer............................................10
2.6 Algorithms.................................... 9
2.5.1. XPointer........................................ 9

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

2.6. EncryptionMethod Algorithms...........................11
2.6.1 Algorithms............................. 10
2.6.1. ARCFOUR Encryption Algorithm........................11
2.6.2 Algorithm.................... 10
2.6.2. Camellia Block Encryption...........................12
2.6.3 Encryption....................... 10
2.6.3. Camellia Key Wrap...................................12
2.6.4 PSEC-KEM............................................13 Wrap............................... 11
2.6.4. PSEC-KEM........................................ 11
3. KeyInfo................................................13
3.1 KeyInfo....................................................... 12
3.1. PKCS #7 Bag of Certificates and CRLs..................13
3.2 CRLs.................... 12
3.2. Additional RetrievalMethod Type Values................14 Values.................. 12
4. IANA Considerations....................................15 Considerations........................................... 13
5. Security Considerations................................15
6. Copyright and Disclaimer...............................15 Considerations....................................... 13
Acknowledgements.................................................. 13
Normative References......................................16 References.............................................. 13
Informative References....................................17

Author‚اضs Address..........................................19
Expiration and File Name..................................19

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs References............................................ 15
Author's Address.................................................. 16
Full Copyright Statement.......................................... 17

1. Introduction

XML Digital Signatures, Canonicalization, and Encryption have been
standardized by the W3C and by the joint IETF/W3C XMLDSIG working
group [W3C]. group.
All of these are now W3C Recommendations and IETF Informational or
Standards Track documents. They are available as follows:

IETF level W3C REC Topic
----------- ------- -----
[RFC 3275]
[RFC3275] Draft Std [XMLDSIG] XML Digital Signatures
[RFC 3076]
[RFC3076] Info [CANON] Canonical XML
- - - - - - [XMLENC] XML Encryption
[RFC 3741]
[RFC3741] Info [EXCANON] Exclusive XML Canonicalization

All of these standards and recommendations use URIs [RFC 2396] [RFC2396] to
identify algorithms and keying information types. This document is
provides a convenient reference list of URIs and descriptions for
algorithms in which there is substantial interest interest, but which can not cannot
or have not been included in the main documents for some reason. documents. Note in
particular that raising
XML digital signature to a Draft Standard in the IETF required remove
removal of any algorithms for which there was not
demonstrated interoperability from the main
standards document. document has not been demonstrated. This required removal
of the Minimal Canonicalization algorithm, in which there appears to
be a continued interest, to be dropped from the standards track
specification. It is included here.

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].

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT 2]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

2. Algorithms

The URI [RFC 2396] [RFC2396] being dropped from the standard due to because of the
transition from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard is included in
Section 2.4 below with its original

http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig# prefix so as to avoid changing the
XMLDSIG standard‚اضs standard's namespace.

http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#

Additional algorithms are given URIs that start with with:

http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#

An "xmldsig-more" URI does not imply any official W3C status for
these algorithms or identifiers nor does it imply or that they are only useful in
digital signatures. Currently, dereferencing such URIs may or may
not produce a temporary placeholder document. Permission to use these this
URI prefix has been given by the W3C.

2.1

2.1. DigestMethod Algorithms

These algorithms are usable wherever a DigestMethod element occurs.

2.1.1

2.1.1. MD5

Identifier:

http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#md5

The MD5 algorithm [RFC 1321] [RFC1321] takes no explicit parameters. An example
of an MD5 DigestAlgorithm element is:

An MD5 digest is a 128-bit string. The content of the DigestValue
element shall be the base64 [RFC 2045] [RFC2405] encoding of this bit string
viewed as a 16-octet octet stream.

2.1.2

2.1.2. SHA-224

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha224

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

The SHA-224 algorithm [FIPS 180-2change, RFC 3874] [FIPS-180-2change, RFC3874] takes no explicit
parameters. An example of a SHA-224 DigestAlgorithm element is:

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

A SHA-224 digest is a 224 bit string. The content of the DigestValue
element shall be the base64 [RFC2045] [RFC2405] encoding of this string viewed
as a 28-octet stream. Because it takes roughly the same amount of
effort to compute a SHA-224 message digest as a SHA-256 digest digest, and
terseness is usually not a criteria in an XML application,
consideration should be given to the use of SHA-256 as an
alternative.

2.1.3

2.1.3. SHA-384

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha384

The SHA-384 algorithm [FIPS 180-2] [FIPS-180-2] takes no explicit parameters. An
example of a SHA-384 DigestAlgorithm element is:

A SHA-384 digest is a 384 bit string. The content of the DigestValue
element shall be the base64 [RFC2045] [RFC2405] encoding of this string viewed
as a 48-octet stream. Because it takes roughly the same amount of
effort to compute a SHA-384 message digest as a SHA-512 digest and
terseness is usually not a criteria in XML application, consideration
should be given to the use of SHA-512 as an alternative.

2.2

2.2. SignatureMethod Message Authentication Code Algorithms

Note: Some text in this section is duplicated from [RFC 3275] [RFC3275] for the
convenience of the reader. RFC 3275 is normative in case of
conflict.

2.2.1

2.2.1. HMAC-MD5

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-md5

The HMAC algorithm [RFC 2104] [RFC2104] takes the truncation length in bits as a
parameter; if the parameter is not specified then all the bits of the
hash are output. An example of an HMAC-MD5 SignatureMethod

D. element
is as follows:

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT 4]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs

element is as follows: April 2005

The output of the HMAC algorithm is ultimately the output (possibly
truncated) of the chosen digest algorithm. This value shall be
base64
[RFC 2405] [RFC2405] encoded in the same straightforward fashion as the
output of the digest algorithms. Example: For example, the SignatureValue
element for the HMAC-MD5 digest

9294727A 3638BB1C 13F48EF8 158BFC9D

from the test vectors in [RFC 2104] [RFC2104] would be

kpRyejY4uxwT9I74FYv8nQ==

Schema Definition:

<simpleType name="HMACOutputLength">
<restriction base="integer"> base="integer" />
</simpleType>

DTD:

<!ELEMENT HMACOutputLength (#PCDATA) >

The Schema Definition and DTD immediately shown above are copied taken from [RFC
3275].
[RFC3275].

Although some cryptographic suspicions have recently been cast on MD5
for use in signatures such as RSA-MD5 below, this does not effect use
of MD5 in HMAC.

2.2.2

2.2.2. HMAC SHA Variations

Identifiers:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-sha224
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-sha256
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-sha384
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-sha512

SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 [FIPS 180-2, FIPS 180-2change,
RFC 3874] [FIPS-180-2, FIPS-180-2change,
RFC3874] can also be used in HMAC as described in section 2.2.1
above for
HMAC-MD5.

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT 5]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs

2.2.3 April 2005

2.2.3. HMAC-RIPEMD160

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#hmac-ripemd160

RIPEMD-160 [RIPEMD-160] can also be used in HMAC as described in
section 2.2.1 above for HMAC-MD5.

2.3

2.3. SignatureMethod Public Key Signature Algorithms

These algorithms are distinguished from those in Section 2.2 above in that
they use public key methods. That is to say, the The verification key is different from
and not feasibly derivable from the signing key.

2.3.1

2.3.1. RSA-MD5

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-md5

This

RSA-MD5 implies the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding algorithm described in [RFC
2437].
[RFC3447]. An example of use is

The SignatureValue content for an RSA-MD5 signature is the base64
[RFC 2405]
[RFC2405] encoding of the octet string computed as per [RFC 2437], [RFC3447],
section 8.1.1, signature generation for the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
signature scheme. As specified in the EMSA-PKCS1-V1_5-ENCODE
function in [RFC 2437, [RFC3447, section 9.2.1], the value input to the
signature function MUST contain a pre-pended algorithm object
identifier for the hash function, but the availability of an ASN.1
parser and recognition of OIDs is are not required of a signature
verifier. The PKCS#1 v1.5 representation appears as:

CRYPT (PAD (ASN.1 (OID, DIGEST (data))))

Note that the padded ASN.1 will be of the following form:

01 | FF* | 00 | prefix | hash

Vertical bar ("|") represents concatenation. "01", "FF", and "00"
are fixed octets of the corresponding hexadecimal value and the
asterisk ("*") after "FF" indicates repetition. "hash" is the MD5
digest of

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs the data. "prefix" is the ASN.1 BER MD5 algorithm
designator prefix required in PKCS #1 [RFC 2437], [RFC3447], that is, is:

hex 30 20 30 0c 06 08 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 02 05 05 00 04 10

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

This prefix is included to make it easier to facilitate the use of standard
cryptographic libraries. The FF octet MUST be repeated enough times
that the value of the quantity being CRYPTed is exactly one octet
shorter than the RSA modulus.

Due to increases in computer processor power and advances in
cryptography, use of RSA-MD5 is NOT RECOMMENDED.

2.3.2

2.3.2. RSA-SHA256

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha256

This implies the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding algorithm [RFC 2437] [RFC3447] as described
in section 2.3.1 2.3.1, but with the ASN.1 BER SHA-256 algorithm designator
prefix. An example of use is is:

2.3.3 RSA-SHA384

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha384

This implies the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding algorithm [RFC 2437] [RFC3447] as described
in section 2.3.1 2.3.1, but with the ASN.1 BER SHA-384 algorithm designator
prefix. An example of use is is:

Because it takes about the same effort to calculate a SHA-384 message
digest as it does a SHA-512 message digest, it is suggested that RSA-
SHA512 RSA-SHA512
be used in preference to RSA-SHA384 where possible.

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

2.3.4

2.3.4. RSA-SHA512

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha512

This implies the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding algorithm [RFC 2437] [RFC3447] as described
in section 2.3.1 2.3.1, but with the ASN.1 BER SHA-512 algorithm designator
prefix. An example of use is is:

2.3.5

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

2.3.5. RSA-RIPEMD160

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more/rsa-ripemd160

This implies the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding algorithm [RFC 2437] [RFC3447], as
described in section 2.3.1 2.3.1, but with the ASN.1 BER RIPEMD160
algorithm designator prefix. An example of use is is:

2.3.6

2.3.6. ECDSA-SHA*

Identifiers
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#ecdsa-sha1
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#ecdsa-sha224
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#ecdsa-sha256
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#ecdsa-sha384
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#ecdsa-sha512

The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) [FIPS 186-2] [FIPS-186-2]
is the elliptic curve analogue of the DSA (DSS) signature method.
For
a detailed specifications of on how to use it with SHA hash functions
and XML Digital Signature, please see [X9.62] and [ECDSA].

2.3.7

2.3.7. ESIGN-SHA1

Identifier
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#esign-sha1

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#esign-sha224
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#esign-sha256
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#esign-sha384
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#esign-sha512

The ESIGN algorithm specified in [IEEE P1363a] [IEEE-P1363a] is a signature scheme
based on the integer factorization problem. It is much faster than
previous digital signature schemes so ESIGN can be implemented on
smart cards without special co-processors.

An example of use is is:

2.4

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

2.4. Minimal Canonicalization

Thus far two independent interoperable implementations of Minimal
Canonicalization have not been announced. Therefore, when XML
Digital Signature was advanced from Proposed Standard [RFC 3075] [RFC3075] to
Draft Standard [RFC 3275], [RFC3275], Minimal Canonicalization was dropped from
the standard standards track documents. However, there is still interest and
indicates of in
Minimal Canonicalization, indicating its possible future use for Minimal Canonicalization. use. For
its definition, see [RFC 3075], [RFC3075], Section 6.5.1.

For reference, it‚اضs its identifier remains:
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#minimal

2.5

2.5. Transform Algorithms

Note that all CanonicalizationMethod algorithms can also be used as
Transform
transform algorithms.

2.5.1

2.5.1. XPointer

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more/xptr

This transform algorithm takes an [XPointer] as an explicit
parameter. An example of use is: is [RFC3092]:

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs
<XPointer
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more/xptr">
xpointer(id("foo")) xmlns(bar=http://foobar.example)
xpointer(//bar:Zab[@Id="foo"])
</XPointer>
</Transform>

Schema Definition:

DTD:

<!ELEMENT XPointer (#PCDATA) >

Input to this transform is an octet stream (which is then parsed into
XML).

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

Output from this transform is a node set; the results of the XPointer
are processed as defined in the XMLDSIG specification [RFC 3275] [RFC3275] for a same-document
same document XPointer.

2.6

2.6. EncryptionMethod Algorithms

This subsection gives identifiers and information for several
EncryptionMethod Algorithms.

2.6.1

2.6.1. ARCFOUR Encryption Algorithm

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#arcfour

ARCFOUR is a fast, simple stream encryption algorithm that is
compatible with RSA Security‚اضs Security's RC4 algorithm. An example of the
EncryptionMethod element using ARCFOUR is

Note that Arcfour makes use of the generic KeySize parameter
specified and defined in [XMLENC].

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

2.6.2

2.6.2. Camellia Block Encryption

Identifiers:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#camellia128-cbc
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#camellia192-cbc
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#camellia256-cbc

Camellia is an efficient and secure block cipher with the same
interface as the AES [Camellia, RFC 3713], RFC3713], that is 128-bit block size
and 128, 192, and 256 bit key sizes. In XML Encryption Encryption, Camellia is
used in the same way as the AES: It is used in the Cipher Block
Chaining (CBC) mode with a 128-bit initialization vector (IV). The
resulting cipher text is prefixed by the IV. If included in XML
output, it is then base64 encoded. An example Camellia
EncryptionMethod is as follows:

2.6.3

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

2.6.3. Camellia Key Wrap

Identifiers:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#kw-camellia128
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#kw-camellia192
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#kw-camellia256

The Camellia [Camellia, RFC 3713] RFC3713] key wrap is identical to the AES key
wrap algorithm [RFC 3394] [RFC3394] specified in the XML Encryption standard
with "AES" replaced by "Camellia". As with AES key wrap, the check
value is 0xA6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6.

The algorithm is the same whatever regardless of the size of the Camellia key
used in wrapping, called wrapping (called the key encrypting key or KEK. KEK). The
implementation of Camellia is OPTIONAL. However, if it is supported,
the same implementation guidelines as to of which combinations of KEK size
and wrapped key size should be required to be supported and which are
optional to be supported should be followed. followed as for AES. That is to
say, if Camellia key wrap is supported, they then wrapping 128-bit keys
with a 128-bit KEK and wrapping 256-bit keys with a 256-bit KEK are
REQUIRED and all other combinations are OPTIONAL.

An example of use is:

<EncryptionMethod
Algorithm=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#kw-camellia128"

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs />

2.6.4

2.6.4. PSEC-KEM

Identifier:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#psec-kem

The PSEC-KEM algorithm, specified in [ISO/IEC 18033-2], [ISO/IEC-18033-2], is a key
encapsulation mechanism using elliptic curve encryption.

An example of use is:

<EncryptionMethod
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#psec-kem">
<ECParameters>
<Version>version</Version>
<FieldID>id</FieldID>
<Curve>curve</Curve>
<Base>base</Base>
<Order>order</Order>
<Cofactor>cofactor</Cofactor>
</ECParameters>

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 11]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

</EncryptionMethod>

See [ISO/IEC 18033-2] [ISO/IEC-18033-2] for information on the parameters above.

3. KeyInfo

In section 3.1 below a new KeyInfo element child is specified specified, while in
section 3.2 additional KeyInfo Type values for use in RetrievalMethod
are specified.

3.1

3.1. PKCS #7 Bag of Certificates and CRLs

A PKCS #7 [RFC 2315] [RFC2315] "signedData" can also be used as a bag of
certificates and/or certificate revocation lists (CRLs). The
PKCS7signedData element is defined to accommodate such structures
within KeyInfo. The binary PKCS #7 structure is base64 [RFC 2405] [RFC2405]
encoded. Any signer information present is ignored. The following
is a an example, eliding the base64 data:

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs data [RFC3092]:

<foo:PKCS7signedData
xmlns:foo="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more">
...
</foo:PKCS7signedData>

3.2

3.2. Additional RetrievalMethod Type Values

The Type attribute of RetrievalMethod is an optional identifier for
the type of data to be retrieved. The result of de-referencing dereferencing a
RetrievalMethod reference for all KeyInfo types with an XML structure
is an XML element or document with that element as the root. The
various "raw" key information types return a binary value. Thus Thus,
they require a Type attribute because they are not unambiguously
parseable.

Identifiers:
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#KeyValue
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#RetrievalMethod
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#KeyName
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawX509CRL
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawPGPKeyPacket
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawSPKISexp
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#PKCS7signedData
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawPKCS7signedData

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT 12]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

4. IANA Considerations

None.

As it is easy for people to construct their own unique URIs [RFC
2396] and, possible, if appropriate, to [RFC2396]
and possibly obtain a URI from the W3C, W3C if appropriate, it is not
intended that any additional
"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#" "http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-
more#" URIs be created beyond those enumerated in this document.
(W3C Namespace stability rules prohibit the creation of new URIs
under "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#".)

5. Security Considerations

Due to computer speed and cryptographic advances, the use of MD5 as a
DigestMethod or and the use of MD5 in the RSA-MD5 SignatureMethod is NOT
RECOMMENDED. The concerned cryptographic advances concerned do not effect the
security of HMAC-MD5; however, there is little reason not to go for use one
of the SHA series of algorithms.

6. Copyright and Disclaimer

Copyright (C) 2004 The Internet Society. This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and except
as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis

Acknowledgements

Glenn Adams, Merlin Hughs, Gregor Karlinger, Brian LaMachia, Shiho
Moriai, Joseph Reagle, Russ Housley, and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs Joel Halpern.

Normative References

[Camellia] - "Camellia: A 128-bit Block Cipher Suitable for
Multiple Platforms - Design and Analysis -", K.
Aoki, T. Ichikawa, M. Matsui, S. Moriai, J.
Nakajima, T. Tokita, In Selected Areas in
Cryptography, 7th Annual International Workshop,
SAC 2000, August 2000, Proceedings, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science 2012, pp. 39-56,
Springer-Verlag, Springer-
Verlag, 2001.

[ECDSA] - "ECDSA with XML-Signature Syntax", S. Blake-Wilson, G. S., Karlinger, T. G., Kobayashi, T.,
and Y. Want, January 2004. draft-blake-wilson-
xmldsig-ecdsa-*.txt

[FIPS 180-1] - "Secure Hash Standard", (SHA-1) US Federal Information
Processing Standard, 17 Wang, "Using the Elliptic Curve Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA) for XML Digital Signatures", RFC
4050, April 1995.

[FIPS 180-2] - 2005.

[FIPS-180-2] "Secure Hash Standard", (SHA-1/256/384/512) US
Federal Information Processing Standard, Draft, not yet issued.

[FIPS 180-2change] - 1 August
2002.

[FIPS-180-2change] "FIPS 180-2, Secure Hash Standard Change Notice
1", adds SHA-224 to [FIPS 180-2].

[FIPS 186-2] - 180-2], 25 February
2004.

[FIPS-186-2] "Digital Signature Standard", National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 2000.

[IEEE P1363a] -

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 13]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

[IEEE-P1363a] "Standard Specifications for Public Key
Cryptography: Additional Techniques", October
2002.

[ISO/IEC 18033-2] -

[ISO/IEC-18033-2] "Information technology -- Security techniques --
Encryption algorithms -- Part 3: Asymmetric
ciphers", CD, October 2002.

[RFC 1321] -

[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", R. Rivest, Algorithm ",
RFC 1321, April 1992.

[RFC 2104] -

[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", H.
Krawczyk, M. Bellare, R. Canetti, RFC
2104, February 1997.

[RFC 2119] -

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

[RFC 2396] -

[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax", T.
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, RFC 2396, August 1998.

[RFC 2405] - "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One:
Format of Internet Message Bodies", N. Freed,

[RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Borenstein, Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC
Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405,
November
1996.

[RFC 2437] - "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.0",
B. Kaliski, J. Staddon, October 1998.

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

[RFC 2315] -

[RFC2315] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message
Syntax Version 1.5", B.
Kaliski, RFC 2315, March 1998.

[RFC 3075] - "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", D. Eastlake, J.

[RFC3075] Eastlake 3rd, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "XML-
Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3075, March
2001. (RFC 3075 was obsoleted by RFC 3275 but is
referenced in this document for its description of
Minimal Canonicalization which was dropped in RFC
3275.)

[RFC 3275] - "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", D. Eastlake, J.

[RFC3275] Eastlake 3rd, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo,
"(Extensible Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax
and Processing", RFC 3275, March 2002.

[RFC 3394] -

[RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption
Standard (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm",
J. Schaad, R. Housley, RFC 3394,
September 2002.

[RFC 3713] -

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 14]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

[RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key
Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February
2003.

[RFC3713] Matsui, M., Nakajima, J., and S. Moriai, "A
Description of the Camellia Encryption Algorithm", M.
Matsui, J. Nakajima, S. Moriai,
RFC 3713, April 2004.

[RFC 3874] -

[RFC3874] Housley, R., "A 224-bit One-way Hash Function:
SHA-224", R. Housley, RFC 3874, September 2004.

[RIPEMD-160] - ISO/IEC 10118-3:1998, "Information Technology -
Security techniques - Hash-functions - Part3:
Dedicated hash- functions", ISO, 1998.

[X9.62] - X9.62-200X, "Public Key Cryptography for the
Financial Services Industry: The Elliptic Curve
Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)", Accredited
Standards Committee X9, American National
Standards Institute.

[XMLDSIG] "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", D. Eastlake
3rd, J. Reagle, & D. Solo, 12 February 2002.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/>

[XMLENC] - "XML Encryption Syntax and Processing", J. Reagle,
D. Eastlake, December 2002.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/RED-xmlenc-core-
20021210/>

[XPointer] - "XML Pointer Language (XPointer) Version 1.0", W3C
working draft, Steve DeRose, Eve Maler, Ron Daniel
Jr., January 2001.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xptr-20010108>

Informative References

[CANON] - "Canonical XML Version 1.0", John Boyer.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315>.

[EXCANON] - "Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0", D.
Eastlake, J. Reagle, 18 July 2002. <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-
enc-c14n-20020718/>.

[RFC 3076] -
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-enc-c14n-20020718/>.

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

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT 15]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs

[RFC 3092] - "Etymology of ‚اضFoo‚اض", D. April 2005

[RFC3092] Eastlake 3rd, C. D., Manros, C., and E. Raymond, 1 April
"Etymology of "Foo"", RFC 3092, 2001.

[RFC 3741] - "Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0", J.

[RFC3741] Boyer,
D. J., Eastlake 3rd, D., and J. Reagle,
"Exclusive XML Canonicalization, Version 1.0", RFC
3741, March 2004.

D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT Additional XML Security URIs

Author‚اضs

Author's Address

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola Laboratories
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA

Telephone:

Phone: +1-508-786-7554 (w)
+1-508-634-2066 (h)
EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

Expiration

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 16]

RFC 4051 Additional XML Security URIs April 2005

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and File Name except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This draft expires document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in March 2005.

Its file name
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-09.txt

D. currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 19] 17]

----