OASIS Web Services Security Issues List

Version 37, Modified on Tuesday April 06, 2004 05:02:45 -0700

Status

The previous version of the issues list (Version 36) is at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/download.php/6047/wss-issues-36.htm.  An archive of the document can be found on the mailing list at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200403/msg00052.html. An archive of the discussion list can be found here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/.

If you identify items that are missing or need correction please contact Vijay Gajjala and John Shewchuk.

Issues

WSS ID Type Status Issue Resolution Owner(s)
1 Technical  Closed Can we have alternative mechanisms of signature and encryption other than XML DSIG and XML Encryption? Closed on 10/8/02 - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00085.html Conformant implementations must support XML sig/enc and MAY support additional mechanisms. Closed
2 Procedural Closed Clarify the IP status and licensing terms for the submissions to the working group Closed on 9/24/02 - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00011.html.  References Prateek Mishra's posting.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200208/msg00011.html. Closed
3 Technical  Closed Proposal to Label Tokens to Indicate Their Semantics

F2F Topic - Ronald Monzillo and Anthony Nadalin will send out a proposed set of changes.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html

Closed
4 Technical  Closed Why is the token in the header, and not a child of KeyInfo? Chris talked with PHB.  Chris will write up a proposal. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html  Closed
5 Technical  Closed Within the KeyInfo, why not use a ds:RetrievalMethod? Chris talked with PHB. Depends on 4 and conversation with PHB.   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
6 Investigation Closed Will the authors of the roadmap submit it? Kelvin to update Road Map URL in WSS TC pages to the permanent URL. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html Closed
7 Technical  Closed Does WS-Security assume SOAP 1.1? Per Sept 4 minutes – it will support all versions of SOAP Closed
8 Investigation Closed Determine interest in a Use case document Formed a sub-committee, led by Erik Herring. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00127.html Closed
9 Investigation Closed Approach authors to submit the App Note to the TC http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html Closed
10 Investigation Closed Investigate interop fest at some later time. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html. Closed planned interop event in the middle of June: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200304/msg00049.html Chair
11 Investigation Closed Pick date for OASIS submission date after initial drafts available http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Resolution: Pkan for submission by 7/1

Chair
12 Procedural Closed Remove all references to ws-routing and such References were removed. Closed
13 Technical Closed Element ordering in the Security tag. Editors instructed to clarify.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00085.html Closed
14 Technical Closed State that the recipient SHOULD authenticate the assertion issuer and ensure that the assertion has not been modified http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
15 Technical Closed Core: Spec should indicate that it is based on the SOAP messaging model. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
16 Technical Closed Core: The spec should indicate that nonce and / or timestamp elements should be used to prevent replay. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00085.html Closed
17 Technical Closed Core: Should SOAP nodes acting in a particular role create or update the appropriate timestamp element. Editors instructed to clarify. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200209/msg00094.html Closed
18 Technical Closed Core: No attribute or reference to the senders time. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00085.html Closed
19 Technical Closed Core: Why is it necessary to special case a Username/Password POP token?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html

Closed

20 Technical Closed Core: Define security token propagation. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html
Closed
21 Technical Closed Core: Update definition of a security token to reflect role in defining key or broaden definition. Was related to 2 and 22.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200210/msg00127.html
Closed
22 Technical Closed Core: Should the spec preclude security tokens whose purpose is other than to convey or bind a key to an identity or entity? Editors to clarify by added "entity" instead of "client".  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html 
Closed
23 Technical Closed Core: Make Proof-of-Possession a fundamental type or relationship within [sic] within the ws-security model? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
24 Technical Closed Core: Why is it necessary to treat XML Signature elements as other than security tokens? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
25 Technical

Closed

Core: How can a Signature element occurring outside of the header be referenced? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Put scenarios on mailing list. Ron will dig up scenarios. The TC will try to close at the F2F. Ron will put a proposal to close this issue on the e-mail list.  Resolved to not support!

Closed
26 Technical Closed Core: What does it mean to process a BinarySecurityToken?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00000.html

Closed
27 Technical Closed Core: Reference element should have an @any to allow for attribute extensibility http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
28 Technical Closed SAML Binding: Include the use of the URI attribute (on SecurityTokenReference) from the SS TC submission

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html

Closed
29 Technical Closed SAML Binding: Should there be a reference form that carries what amounts to a SAML assertion Query such that the sender does not need to have acquired the assertion (to be able to apply it to a request)?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html

Closed
30 Technical

Closed

How should XML be explained. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html. Chris has sent mail to Editors for what they are supposed to do! Closed
31 Technical Closed Should use OASIS Namespace http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

 

Karl Best had formed committee to solve this problem. A proposal has been sent to the email archive http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200309/msg00064.html

Kelvin to send a proposal on what comes after tcname.

Kelvin's proposal (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200312/msg00006.html) was approved.

 

Closed
32 Technical Closed A couple of parameter values are prescribed (e.g. SHA-1 in the case of the password digest and “five minutes” in the case of message freshness).  The specification should be flexible in these respects. Closed  in Draft 4 of Core specs.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
33 Technical Closed The specification should prescribe clear behavior for all parties in regard to freshness safeguards.  And it should require that time values be enclosed in integrity mechanisms. Closed  in Draft 4 of Core specs.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
34 Technical Closed <wsu:Created> appears to be just a convenient way for the originator to create a nonce.  Therefore, it seems unnecessary to require processing different from that required for the <wsu:Nonce> element. Closed  in Draft 4 of Core specs.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
35 Technical Closed Is it necessary to support the HexBinary encoding of tokens? Closed  in Draft 4 of Core specs.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
36 Technical Closed In section 10.2.2, why not just specify that the <Created> element type be xsd:dateTime?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00000.html

Closed
37 Technical Closed lines 193-195: Where does the threat of replay attacks belong to? To the first or the second group? Closed  in Draft 4 of Core specs.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
38 Technical Closed line 238: Since this is a normative text, how "inappropriate claims" is defined here? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
39 Technical Closed Lines 251-255: Since the UrenameToken element does not have password digest, what is the purpose of the Nonce and Created elements here?  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
40 Technical Closed Paragraphs in lines 535-537 and 538-540 repeat each other and one of them needs to be eliminated. Closed. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00044.html Closed
41 Technical Closed Line 1016: what specification's section 4.5.3 does it refer to? The above text implies XML Encryption. It should be explicit. Closed. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00044.html Closed
42 Technical Closed Line 1155: the meaning of "materially" is unclear. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html Closed
43 Technical Closed Lines 1430, 1431: The clause "these elements be included in the signature" is unclear. What does "included in the signature" mean? Should they be signed? Closed. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00044.html Closed
44 Technical Closed SAML Cannonicalization http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
45 Technical Closed WS_Security Core, Draft 3 uses "Multiple trust domains" on Lines 114 and 141 but never defines this term.  "End-to-end message level security" on line 141 is also not defined.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200212/msg00037.html Closed
46 Technical

Closed

WSDL definitions - It seems to me that a stand-alone specification should just define the semantics of its elements.  If an application wants those semantics, then the application WSDL should specify the header as being required.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Hal: follow up and find out what the real issue is. Hal followed up: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00006.html

Closed
47 Technical Closed Add example.  Working Draft 3.  Page 21, Section 7.1, lines 644-648, recommends that <wsse:SecurityTokenReference> element should be used as direct children of <ds:KeyInfo> elements to retrieve signing and encryption certificate when using XML Signature and XML Encryption. Although in section 8.4, there is a XML Signature example for using <wsse:SecurityTokenReferences> element within the <ds:signature>'s <ds:KeyInfo> element, there is no examples provided to using SecurityTokenReference element for XML Encryption in section 9. E.g., Section 9.2 does have a <wsse:KeyIdentifier> contained within the <xenc:EncryptedKey> element. However, it does not have the <wsse:securityTokenReference> element encapsulating the <wsse:KeyIdentifier> as specified in section 7.3.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

 

Closed
48 Technical Closed Make URI attribute required.  Working Draft 3. Page 22, Section 7.2, lines 662, indicates that SecurityTokenReference/Reference/@URI is an optional attribute. However, the corresponding XML Schema for WS-Security core specification does not explicitly specify the the attribute "URI" of the ReferenceType complex type as an optional attribute by use of "use=optional". I suggest that the URI attribute be required rather than be optional as stated on line 662.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

 

Closed
49 Technical Closed Working Draft 3. Page 26, Section 8.4, lines 852-856, indicates a specifialized type of <ds:KeyInfo> element that although is compatible with Section 7.1, I am concerned that the core specification is silent on the subject of acceptability of processing a signature element that uses an in-line X.509 data (representing, e.g., a signing certificate). What processing behaiour is expected from WS-Security compliant system that may receive a SOAP message that contains a signature element in its SOAP security header, i.e., <wsse:security>, that has a <ds:KeyInfo> element that does not contain <wsse:SecurityTokenReference> element rather contains an in-line X509 data pertaining to the signing cert? I think the specification needs to clearl state that all <ds:KeyInfo> instances that contain in-line cert data are also acceptable in addition to <SecurityTokenReference> element option if indeed we are allowing such in-line X509 cert data type of KeyInfo element be part of signature elements. The motivation of using SecurityTokenReference is mostly in the use case where the same signing certificate, for example, may be used to generate multiple signature elements (i.e., when same signing cert is used for signing multiple SOAP message parts) within a <wsse:Security> header. Having specific wordings of minimum requirements of what a SOAP/WS-Security sending and receiving application must support w.r.t. KeyInfo elements will help in security interoperability tests.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Closed
50 Technical Closed Sections 7.1 (beginning at line 617 of Draft 3 of the core) through 7.3 define the Security Token Reference Element, Direct References and Key Identifiers. I find the use of these varying forms of references confusing. Perhaps Direct References and Key Identifiers are the 2 forms of STRs, but it looks like there is also a n elemental form of STR that is neither a direct reference or a key identifier.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Closed
51 Technical Closed The example beginning at line 637, seems to contain a "direct reference" (in the section on STRs), which makes thedistinction between STR's and direct references difficult (for me) to understand. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00057.html Closed
52 Technical Closed The example in section 3.4 (line 278) seems to have been set up to do a reference bywsu:id attribute value, although the reference is done by URI where the value of theURI is the attribute value. Is this the prefered use model? or would we expect a simpleSTR with a wsu:id value as apposed to a Direct reference/URI to be used? The description of key identifiers seems to imply that Direct references are theprefered form of reference, and where they cannot be used a key identifier isrecommended.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

 

Closed
53 Technical Closed Section 6.1 Usernames  and Passwords, beginning at line 422, defines the use of the <wsse:UsernameToken> element "as a way of providing a username and optional password information". The definition of this tokenmakes no mention of its potential value in defining the key to supportthe signing or encryption of the attached SOAP message.  I realize that the
core document is intended to serve as a framework, but it seems less thanobvious from the description that these tokens could be used to identifya signing (or encryption key); which perhaps is the most significant usecase that features such tokens.

The example in section 3.4  beginning at line 248,  seems to depict the useof such tokens (as revealed by lines 299-300), as a means to carrya password derived signing key. However, the importance of this example,warrants further discussion in section 6.1.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Closed 
54 Technical Closed i) Lines 180 to 184: It is not clear to me whether this definition is meant to describe a case of delegation where the client and sender are two different entities or whether the sender is the channel acting on behalf or a client.  From the definition on lines 217 to 223 it appears that delegation is not intended.  Either way I believe this paragraph should be clarified.

ii) Line 294: Should read Lines (005) to (009) .

iii) Line 461: I believe that this line should read - "This required element specifies the username of the authenticated party or the party to be authenticated"  NOT "of the authenticating party."  A clarifying question - am I correct in believing that this specification does not intend to prohibit the receiving party from using the username and password to authenticate the client?

iv) Lines 534 & 535: I believe that these lines should read " ... binary or XML tokens ..", not just "binary tokens"

v) Lines 575 to 588: Are these lines needed since we RECOMMEND that Exclusive Canonicalization be used?

vi) Section 6.3.2:  We say in the WSS-SAML specification to use the assertion id to reference SAML tokens, not to use the wsu:Id and license id for XrML?  This section should state this and shouldn't unequivocally use "SHOULD" for the wsu:id attribute.

vii) Section 7.1 & 7.2: These sections also don't mention assertion id's for SAML and license id's for XrML.

viii) Section 7.4:  This section only discusses BinarySecurityTokens.  SAML also has a KeyInfo token.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00184.html

i) to be corrected in drafts .

ii) corrected in draft 4 of core specs

iii) need to correct draft

iv) closed.

v) closed.

vii) closed.

viii) closed.

Closed
55 Technical Closed Is it really appropriate to endorse a claim via encryption? Perhaps line 209 in 3.1
should be changed to read: "that is digitally signed by the authority."

Editorial comment - the word "unendorse" can be misinterpreted as some sort of revocation.
I'd argue, remove it from line 208 ("A claim can be endorsed by a trusted authority.") and
then begin line 213 with "A claim may be trusted without explicit endorsement if there is ..."

Editorial - line 362 in 4.2, spell out "Post-Schema Validation InfoSet". I guess this last paragraph says that for non-schema aware processors, support for wsu:Id is optional but recommended? Wouldn't it be better to require support regardless of implementation?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00000.html

Closed
56 Technical Closed General issue with the use of the "utility" namespace for defining elements and attributes used in wsse. It has not been explicitly stated anywhere that I am aware of that the WS-Security TC is responsible for defining this namespace and its associated schema. WS-Security cannot just presume the existence of the utility namespace schema.  ... If there is an expectation that "utility" is to be a truly general Web Services Utility namespace, then it may need to be defined by another TC with input from other Web Services-oriented bodies. But then, again, WSS won't be able to presume its existence at this time.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Closed

57 Technical Closed [Section 4.2 and elsewhere] I do not see any value in using "wsu:Id" when the base XML schema ID Type is available. This is especially true since "wsu:Id" is simply defined in utility as just being of type "xsd:ID".  I believe it can only lead to confusion (and minor additional processing overhead). I recommend removing the use of wsu:Id in vavor of the base xsd:ID.

Related to 56.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00036.html

Closed
58 Technical Closed Various editorial comments

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00036.html

Closed
59 Technical Closed Various editorial comments on XrML binding

Thomas sent mail closing this.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00019.html

Closed
60 Technical Closed Proposal for processing rules.  It seems that for certain bindings of WSS (SAML and XrML in particular) there may be a more straight-forward way of describing processing rules. Currently, the bindings for these have processing rules described under "proof-of-possession" (in other words, you start with the token and then try to figure out if there is proof of possession, without even knowing if you need to do that for the purposes of that message). Recall that SAML and XrML express, among other things, things like "A can do B upon C." A statement such as "A can do B upon C" doesn't have any inherent processing rules that need to be associated to it necessarily. A better way might be to look at the message. For instance, if the message is encrypted, we only need an identification of the key that can decrypt it, not a statement like "A can do B upon C." If the message is signed using a key (say k), we need to validate the signature (say it succeeds), check the semantics of the message (say that it is that Alice is requesting two tickets (to see a movie)), check that the request is fresh (say that it is), check that Alice is authenticated to k (say that she is), check that "Alice can request upon tickets" (say that she can), and, finally, process the request and generate the response. (Also, as Phill pointed out in his recent e-mail, we ought to also indicate where the callers should put -- and the receivers expect to find -- the tokens for each of these steps in order to avoid the cost of figuring out the chains on the server side.) In this way, it is clear what the intent and processing rules of the token are, once we establish that there is first some processing to determine what it is we are trying to prove with the tokens based on the message coming in. I think this is clearer rather than just looking at the tokens and explaining some of the things we can prove with them.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html

Closed
61 Technical Closed

Proposed change in wording to address lines [813]-[820] in merged draft 8, 12 Dec 2002. 

"An XML signature may also be used to prove that the claims in a token apply to the signer. Proving possession of a key associated with a token key claim supports applying the other token claims with the signer. The relying party acceptance of the claims may depend on confidence in the token integrity, such as validation of an authority signature on the token. Multiple tokens may have a key claim for a signature and may be referenced from the signature using a SecurityTokenReference. A key claim can be an X.509 Certificate token, or a Kerberos service ticket token to give two examples."

Frederick: Wording on doc is fine: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00066.html

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html

Closed
62 Technical Closed Versioning Mechanisms.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

The TC has to decide whether to address the versioning issue.  If it is decided to address this issue, then put a concrete proposal on the mailing list. 

Anyone interested in looking at what other groups have invented contact John or Hal - Hal, Phil, John to participate so far. This group to report back with a proposal.

Jerry will make a propsal. 

Resolution: Adopt a versioning scheme that has version information in the URIs. For more information see thread: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00036.html  

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00067.html

Closed
63 Technical Closed XML Token Wrapper

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html

Closed
64 Procedural Closed Add glossary http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html. Terminology section is like a glossary. No additional action required. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200304/msg00049.html Closed
65 Technical Closed Adding support for biometric authentication to the UserName security token. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200301/msg00073.html. Closed  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200304/msg00048.html Closed
66 Technical Closed Open transform http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html

Add subsection to section 7 to define the case where the a security token can be a subelement of a STR. Related note: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200303/msg00002.html

Closed
67 Technical Closed for v1

Open (post-v1)

Resolve usage labels. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Hal to begin editing a Usage Label document, which may transition into a profile.

TC
68 Technical Closed Review username password hash encryption issues http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200302/msg00017.html
Chris: no uniform way to express which shared secret to use, but could define QName values for this.
 
Closed
69 Technical Closed The specification is vague on the topic of Key Identifiers. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Resolution: All profiles now call out how KeyIdentifiers are used

Closed
70 Technical Closed The specification needs to clarify usage of S:mustUnderstand. There were several opinions on what understanding would include: understanding and processing <wsse:Security> header element and all its sub elements when the header element is tagged with mustUnderstand="1", understanding but not processing, tagging all child elements with explicit S:mustUnderstand values of "0" or "1"... http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

resolution: mustUnderstand on Security header simply means you are aware of the WS-Sec spec, and there are no implied semantics. Text reflected in core.

Closed
71 Technical Closed Inconsistent token pre-pending rules http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Continue to discuss on list.  Related to #84. Please look at issue #84 for resolution.

Closed.
72 Technical Closed Awkward status of message timestamps in WSS core. Two issues: Timestamp trace and Expires. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Resolution: Timestamp trace -> remove from the core specification and put into another doc.

Resolution: Expires ->

change lines 1263-1264 of core-13 from
"it is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that recipients ..." to "Recipients MUST ..."; 2) change introductory paragraph around lines 1234-..., clarifying the expiration for security purposes rather than application purposes, and clarifying the consideration of clock skew - Editors to make Timestamp header a child of Security header, and to remove the ability of Expires to stand alone (section 10.2.2 moves to child of section 10.3) .

Closed
73 Technical Closed What tokens are allowed within TokenReference? Add an embedded reference, but this isn't well defined. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Editors have not yet made a proposal.  Chris will contact the editors to pull this together.

Closed
74 Technical Closed Encrypting a password. Points of discussion:
1. Should we encrypt password, username or the entire UsernameToken element? 2. Should we add an XCBF parameter to Username token? Should this be used in interop? 3. If interop model is viewed as guidance from the TC on secure usages, shouldn't it be secure completely? 4. How do we balance against existing deployments, which require passwords in the clear?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

The Interop issues, which are part of this issue, have been closed.  Open: text for Security Considerations needs to be done.  Hal has sent proposed text.  Please review.

Resolution: Put in password token profile, internal reference will be fixed in Hal's text. Due phoncon next week.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00005.html

Closed
75 Technical Closed Denial of service attacks and error reporting.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

Use standard SOAP language. Must generate a fault, however, generating a fault does not mean sending a fault.  Review editorial changes.

Closed
76 Technical Closed X.509 profile issue 1: Is it desirable to use same element as reference and referrent? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

To wait for Tim to join the discussion.

Closed
77 Technical Closed X.509 profile issue 2: In Section 3.4, the proposal should be more fully described. Why would one not just put the wsu:id in the ds:keyName element of the ds:keyInfo http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00025.html

To wait for Tim to join the discussion.

Closed
78 Technical Closed X.509 profile issue 3: Under what circumstances would one need to reference an X.509 certificate containing an encryption key? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00026.html

Tim Moses will have a chance review in June.

Closed
79 Technical Closed X.509 profile issue 4: It might be necessary to carry more than one certificate. It should be explained which element needs to be duplicated in order to convey multiple certificates. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00026.html

Tim Moses will have a chance review in June.

Closed
80 Technical Closed X.509 profile issue 5: Suggest MUST use common error codes http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200303/msg00036.html

Tim Moses will have a chance review in June.

Closed
81 Technical Closed Question on STR usage attribute: Does the definition of the usage attribute of STR allow for the
association of multiple usage annotations with an STR?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00026.html

Will fix in schema. Fixed in schema?

Closed
82 Procedural Closed Scrub specs and update links to other specifications Kelvin Lawrence:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200303/msg00056.html
Closed
83 Technical Closed <xenc:EncryptedData> element should precede the <xenc:EncryptedKey/> element in the
interop scenario.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00026.html

Closed as there were no comments.

Closed
84 Technical Closed for v1

Open (post v1)

Comment on Core Spec and Interop Scenario #3 - Decryption Transform. Ordering semantics of the <wsse:Security> header can not be used in all cases to determine the encryption and signature ordering. Perhaps we should require use of the Decryption Transform on all
signatures or at least in every case when both encryption and signatures are being used.
Hal has written an email:

http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00022.html

Needs to be reviewed. Hal proposed text for issue: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00003.html . Tony to propose edits and/or provide history.

Closed
85 Procedural Closed. Post a draft of F2F questions. Paul Cotton has posted draft. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200304/msg00009.html  Closed
86 Technical Postponed

Open
(post v1)

Non-repudiation proposal to be included as part of WS-Security http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200304/msg00016.html.

Resolution: Defer till after v1. Resolution date: Jun-17-03.

Closed
87 Technical Closed Add a profile for XKMS to WS-Security. Currently no owner for this. Closed
88 Procedural Closed Wrap up and release dates for version 1.0 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00000.html Kelvin to meet with Chris and draft a proposal. Others can indicate critical dates. Duplicate of Issue #11. Closed
89 Technical Closed Proposal for making BinaryToken and XML Token to be abstract types.  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00046.html :

Chris to post a mail why it would not work in practice.

Closed
90 Technical Closed Clarification needed on wsse:Embedded. Is the motivation for wsse:Embedded to have the token literally embedded in an STR? If so, the examples with wsu:Id seem incorrect. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00028.html

1. clarify id on line 728 other things can sign this
2. 742 - 743 should show embedded saml token
3. 730 733 contain cut and paste error should say embedded rather than KeyIdenfier.

Fixed in specs

Closed
91 Technical Closed Interop spec mustUnderstand uses "true" where as SOAP mustUnderstand attribute is either "1" or "0". The interop schema doesn't validate against SOAP schema. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00025.html . Fixed in draft 3. Propose we close. Closed
92 Technical Closed Should we support "multiple recipient" case for encryption? A possible use of multiple EncryptedKey elements in different security headers is to enable multiple roles, possessing distinct private asymmetric keys, to get access to the same data, encrypted with the same symmetric key. In this scenario, the intermediary, should perform the decryptions indicated in the Security header labeled with its role, passing the result to its local application. The problem is there is no way to distinguish this case versus Super encryption case where multiple encryption headers might also exist. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00022.html not a separate issue, part of the order of decryption issue. No one commented.
Resolution: if you want support multiple recipient case for encryption, you're on your own
 
Closed
93 Technical Closed Error in WSS interop example #2. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00005.html

Fixed in latest draft. Closed.

Closed
94 Technical Closed Embedded missing from STR preferred. Embedded References were not added to the list in lines 642-648 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00012.html. Editorial update done Closed
95 Technical Closed The xmlenc schema does not specify anyAttribute; I think this means that the permitted attributes of EncryptedData are fixed, and the original unqualified Id attribute would then be correct.
 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00027.html

Editorial update done.

Closed
96 Technical Closed Various edits.

Some small issues/edits from reading half of the doc.

i) Line 186:

The xsd: prefix is also used in the document.

ii) Line 490 and globally:

"A string label" is, to me, a slightly vague definition for ID attributes; would "An ID label" or some such be better?

iii) Line 544:

... The ValueType attribute s/allows/is/ a qualified name ...

iv) Line 547 and elsewhere:

If EncodingType is unspecified, I presume that means base 64; should we say this explicitly? We say 'default'
in some places, but the meaning of that is not altogether clear to me; I could misinterpret as schema default.

v) Lines 562-566:

Why is it RECOMMENDED that the namespace prefixes be declared within the wsse:BinarySecurityToken element? They have to be declared somewhere, in order for the QName to have meaning; so I'm not sure what this recommendation is adding. If anything, shouldn't we be requiring that exclusive c14n, if used, include any non-visibly-utilized namespace prefixes in its unsuppressed prefix list?

vi) Line 600:

... If a s/SecurityTokenRefeference/SecurityTokenReference is/ used outside ...

vii) Line 601:

... reference s/are// MUST be ...

viii) Line 615:

Does wsse:Usage deserve to be a global attribute? It only appears to be used once.

ix) Lines 703, 708 and elsewhere:

703: The ValueType attribute is used to optionally indicate
708: The optional EncodingType attribute is used to indicate

If we don't intend a different meaning, I'd suggest standardizing on the form of line 708.

x) Line 726:

... is used to s/embedded/embed/ a token ...

xi) Lines 730,733:

s/KeyIdentifier/Embedded/

xii) Line 765:

... Additionally, s/defined for// e-mail addresses ...

xiii) Lines 768-777:

Is the font off?
 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00040.html

editorial update approved for v. Editorial update done
No change required for viii.

Closed
97 Technical Closed i) Whitespace

The examples appear to have spaces around usernames, passwords, created. We should state whether or not whitespace is significant, and possibly update the examples. Is the encoded form of the Created element ' 2001...Z ' or '2001...Z'?

ii) Ordering

The schema doesn't specify an element order. Does our UsernameToken profile mandate the order Username,Password,Nonce?,Created? or is any order valid, or should we make the schema more strict?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00041.html

i) Resolution: Whitespace should be preserved.

ii) Update document to define an order and schema should match the document.

 

Closed
98 Technical Closed Because Interop Scenario #3 uses two key pairs instead of four key pairs, it avoids a security threat in a way that was not apparent to me until a recent internal review. The basic issue is: when the responder encrypts the response, how does it determine that the public key it uses is that of the proper party and not some attacker.

Suppose each party has two key pairs, one for signatures and one for encryption. Let us assume the requester provides a certificate containing the public key to be used for encrypting the response. Checking to see if the certificate is valid is insufficient (and probably unnecessary). That would not prevent an attacker from substituting his or her own (perfectly
valid) certificate.

Interop scenario #3 does not have this problem, because the same key is used to sign the request, thus demonstrating that the requester knows the corresponding private key.

There is more than one way to solve this problem. One possible way would be to require that the SubjectName in the encryption certificate is the same as the one in the signature certificate. I do not think this is a good approach. For one thing there are a least a dozen reasons that even if both certs were issued to the same system entity (person), the SubjectNames won't match. Second it doesn't support the case where the requester and recipient are distinct.

A better solution would be to require that the encryption certificate (or at least the public key) fall under the signature of the request. This proves that the key came from the requester, which is what we are really trying to determine. This might be a good time to use /Usage={receiver}.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00044.html

 

Closed
99 Technical Closed KeyIdentifier ValueType

The core spec currently takes the position that the ValueType which optionally appears in the KeyIdentifier describes the thing referred to, e.g. an X.509 cert, rather than the type of the KeyIdentifier itself. In fact the spec says even if it does appear, it is only a hint. This doesn't seem particularly useful...
 

Hal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00076.html
Action: Update text in profiles.
Hal to review, and send email to editors if ok.
Resolution: "Profiles must define what value is implied if specific value is not specified"
Closed
100 Technical Closed Issue: Replay attacks and timestamp. Investigate if there are additional implications of using time stamps and other replay detection mechanisms across multiple SOAP roles. Martijn: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00078.html

Resolution: rely on WS-Addressing.
 

Closed.
101 Technical Closed Key Identifiers Should Not Be Used for Signatures. Using a key identifier to indicate the key to be used for signature validation creates an exposure to a certificate substitution since it is possible for several certificates to exist which refer to the same key pair. Hal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00085.html Closed
102 Technical Closed Remove 7.7 Token Reference Lookup Processing Order. Section 7.7 defines a preferred order for processing the contents of a KeyInfo element, to 'resolve possible ambiguities'. Propose removing this section as it provides no additional benefit. Merlin: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00087.html

Resolution: remove section.
Action: Editors remove section

Closed
103 Editorial Closed ValueType attribute: docs should state "ValueType attribute is RECOMMENDED for BinarySecurityToken and RECOMMENDED for Reference with non-local URI". Rework the example in 7.2. Merlin: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00088.html
Resolution: Change text REQUIRED on BST and RECOMMENDED on Reference.
Closed
104 Technical Closed Signature Transform: The signature transform in section 8.3 seems underspecified. In particular, 'echo' isn't particularly meaningful when transforming node sets Merlin: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00089.html
Action: Merlin to get text to editors. Merlin posted mail on this. Text added.
Closed
105 Technical Closed Signature over EncryptedXXX: Signature over CipherData/CipherReference/@URI to reference the externally-located ciphertext doesn't provide assurances over encrypted data. 
 
Merlin: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00090.html
Action: Merlin to get text to Hal. Text added.
Closed
106 Editorial Closed Editors to add common interop pitfalls to spec Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html
Closed
107 Editorial Closed Editors to update table in core spec that indicates when to use wsu:Id vs Id defined by other schema Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html
Closed
108 Editorial Closed Editors to look into SHOULD vs MUST for order of encrypted elements Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html
Closed
109 Editorial Closed Editors to update spec to require time be expressed as Zulu time Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html
Text added.
Closed
110 Editorial Closed Editors to change text on reporting faults Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html
Closed
111 Procedural Closed Compile the list of contributors to the spec. Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html;

Kelvin to update contributor list and forward to editors.

Closed
112 Technical Closed Under what circumstances would one need to reference an X.509 certificate containing an encryption key? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200305/msg00026.html Closed
113 Technical Closed Key Identifiers Should Not Be Used for Signatures. Using a key identifier to indicate the key to be used for signature validation creates an exposure to a certificate substitution since it is possible for several certificates to exist which refer to the same key pair. Hal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00085.html
Text added.
Closed
114 Editorial Closed Editors to add common interop pitfalls to spec. Interop action item
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200306/msg00097.html

Resolution: Duplicate

Closed
115 Editorial Closed Use of ValueType in X.509 Profile - ValueType should contain specific values and should contain version number http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00009.html

Resolution: Profiles are reved independent of the core spec and of the underlying spec being profiled.
Incorporated into the latest versions. 

Closed
116 Technical Closed Is timestamp a security token? Seems like it is related to issue #73. Marking closed. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00010.html Closed
117 Technical Closed X.509 QName versioning - versioning of X.509 Token and versioning of token profile... http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00020.html

Resolution: Duplicate of issue 115.

Closed
118 Technical Closed Remove either PKCS#7 or PKIPath http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00020.html

Resolution: Leave text as is. Recommend PKIPath, but allow PKCS#7

Closed
119 Editorial Closed <Password> and <Nonce> elements in core spec http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00029.html

Resolution: Move out of core.

Closed
120 Technical Closed Frederick Hirsch: Why should Nonce and Timestamp both be used instead of one or the other http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00033.html

Frederick to provide text
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00025.html

Closed
121 Technical Closed Frederick Hirsch: Does this document need any processing rules stated - for example: what the mechanism for generating and exchanging nonce? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00033.html

Frederick to provide text
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00025.html

Closed
122 Technical Closed How is Created timestamp defined [174]? Is it wsu:Timestamp or some other schema dataType? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00033.html

Editors to update
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00046.html

Closed
123 Editorial Closed Some typos

99s;information..;information.;
118s;SHA-1 has ;SHA-1 hash ;
183 & 201 update wsse, wsu namespaces in examples to match [87] Add wsu to [87]?
 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00033.html

 

Closed
124 Editorial Closed boilerplate intro not necessary in each profile, specifically identification/contact info, description and updates; editors to remove 4 bullets in boilerplate intro of each doc http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00045.html Closed
125 Editorial Closed Chang, Symon: Username Token in Username Token Profile has some misleading information. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00048.html Closed
126 Technical Closed Frederick: Namespace stability issue: are the wsse and wsu namespaces stable? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00051.html Closed
127 Technical Closed Peter Dapkus: Spec should address the issue of non-visibly used namespaces http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00070.html

Resolution: Consensus on two points:
 - remove recommendation for exclusive c14n
 - add brief description under interop considerations
Hal to propose wording for issue 127.
Resolution: Doesn't block ship
Hal to provide non normative text.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00058.html

Clsoed
128 Technical Closed Peter Dapkus: example in section 3.2 has questionable use of UsernameToken http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200307/msg00071.html
Resolution: Tony to change example to refer to custom token rather than username token, and to add description text
 
Closed
129 Technical Closed Frederick Hirsch: attachment encryption processing should be clarified. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00009.html
Resolution: Editors to remove text on SOAP attachments
Closed
130 Technical Closed Phil Hallam-Baker: Continuing Encryption discussion - new proposal http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00002.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00033.html
Closed
131 Technical Closed Interop 2 issue: Signed Token. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00051.html Closed
132 Editorial Closed Minor errata on core specification http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00048.html Closed
133 Technical Closed Merlin Hughes - Related to Issue 99: KeyIdentifier without ValueType - security header does not explicitly indicate http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00040.html

Merlin: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00017.html

Change accepted. Editors to make change.

Closed
134 Editorial Closed Merlin Hughes - Changes to examples in core specification http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00043.html

Merlin: Recommend closing: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00017.html

Closed
135 Editorial Closed Kelvin Lawrence: (Post committee spec) Need to rename document filies http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200308/msg00068.html

Will be addressed with issue 31.

Kelvin's proposal (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200312/msg00006.html) was approved.

Closed
136 Editorial Closed Frederick Hirsch - Core: minor example issues http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200309/msg00007.html Closed
137 Technical Closed PasswordDigest in Username profile http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200309/msg00008.html
Issue resolved via list. Hal to provide text.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00059.html
Closed
138 Editorial Closed Core - Line 416 - 'MAY' should be 'can' - "The prepending rule ensures that receiving application MAY process sub-elements in the order..." Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
139 Editorial Closed Core - Line 422 - The "SHOULD" phrase is confusing, just simply say
that key-bearing element SHOULD be ordered to precede the key-using element
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
140 Editorial Closed Core - Line 459 - We suggest that 'SHALL be' is replaced with 'are' - "This chapter specifies different types of security tokens and how they SHALL be attached to messages..." Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
141 Editorial Closed Core - Line 599 -  Typo - "reference". Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
142 Editorial Closed Core - Line 613, 615 - Grammar of sentence confusing, including use of
"SHALL".
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
143 Editorial Closed Core - Line 832, 833 - Even though RFC 2119 does not require
capitalization, we suggest that 'should' needs to be 'SHOULD' and it needs to say that order of elements represents order of operations - "Finally if a sender wishes to sign  a message before encryption they should alter the order of the signature and encryption elements inside of the <wsse:Security> header".
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
144 Editorial Closed Core - Line 838-839 - Awkward wording, and questionable use of "SHOULD" and "MUST"- "Senders SHOULD take care to sign all important elements of the message, but care MUST be taken in creating a signing policy..." Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
145 Editorial Closed Core - Line 937-938 (Section 8.3) - It is not clear in the document what are 'x' and 'y'. Are they placeholders, if not they should probably be in quotes.
 
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
146 Editorial Closed Core - Section 13 - Is section 13 supposed to be non-normative? If that is indeed the case, there should be no SHOULD/MAY/MUST in this section. Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
147 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Lines 32, 33, 34, 39 (Table of Contents) - The section numbers in those lines are out of order. Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
148 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Line 67 (Section 2.1) - There is a reference to SOAP 1.2 namespace. However, there seem to be some old URI in the table Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
149 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Line 107 - Typo, the word 'security' has been misspelled as 'securty'. Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
150 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Lines 155-156 - It is recommended that the element is passed when a secure transport is being used. It is not clear what 'secure transport' means. Does this include SOAP-element level encryption Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
151 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Line 170 - This should be a 'MUST' instead of the 'should', if you are interested in detecting replay attacks Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
152 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Line 236 - The recommendation should reference the security consideration in WSS SOAP Message Security document, section 13, Line 1475, since it is a better description of using signatures to prevent replay attacks. Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
153 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: The core document says that each token profile MUST define the value of QName. This document does not define the value of the QName. Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Needs URI. Editors to clarify sentence saying what Q name to be used Closed
154 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: The Username token profile does not address KeyIdenfier and KeyName. The profile should either state that these are not used or define their meaning. Token profile should define their default values Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Editors to add a note saying Key ID and Key Name does not apply to username tokens Closed
155 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: Some of the references are not used in this document. It will help if the normative one are in a separate section Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Editors to remove non-normative reference Closed
156 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 182 - [] should be used consistently and reference like WS-Security should not be used when also used in the text. E.g. line 182, blue, no bracket Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
157 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 221 - Misuse of capital 'MAY'.
Line 224 - Misuse of capital 'MAY'.
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
158 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 230 - Subsection starts after a ':' Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
159 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 237 - example should be explained Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Philip to add text Closed
160 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 281/318 - The document should explain the meaning of core
reference. Probably should be a wsse:Reference
Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html. Philip to add text Closed
161 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Line 398 - Error code section is inconsistent about references Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Philip to add text Closed
162 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: Section 3.6 - is not normative Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html . Philip to add text Closed
163 Editorial Closed WSS X.509 Certificate Token Profile: "Line 411 - We don't understand the meaning of this sentence" Initial issue raised by WS-I BSP WG: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00000.html Closed
164 Technical Closed Password digest - storing passwords in the clear is not secure. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00001.html Closed
165 Technical Closed Passing binary data in SAML Assertion Token http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200309/msg00000.html Closed
166 Editorial Closed Documents and sections should be marked as normative or  non-normative http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00013.html Closed
167 Editorial Closed Add clarifying text to point out explicitly that the normative schema can be found at the URL specified and downloaded http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00013.html Closed
168 Editorial Closed STR-Transform test vectors & New Issue - The bullet point on lines 950-953 (17/merged) (of core?) is incorrect and should be removed:
 "If the canonicalization algorithm is inclusive XML canonicalization and a node-set is replacing an element from N whose parent element is not in N, then its apex elements MUST inherit attributes associated with the XML namespace from the parent element, such as xml:base, xml:lang and xml:space."
 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00016.html Closed
169 Editorial Closed WSS Username Token Profile: In lines 126-134 of the Username Token Profile, counter measures are given to thwart replay attacks.  The counter measures involve timestamps and nonces.  This works as a counter measure when the attacker attempts to replay the token to the same receiver that legitimately received the token previously.
However, it does not cover the case where the token is replayed to a different receiver
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00015.html

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00043.html

Hal's proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00007.html

Jerry's proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00042.html

Closed
170 Procedural Closed Meta: The list should be open to non-subscribers rather than requiring commentators to join a mailing list. W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
171 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - There are numerous grammatical and punctuation errors - recommend a proof reading scrub W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
172 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - SOAP 1.2 recommendation and explicit support for SOAP 1.1.  W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Editors to add statement that either SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2 be used, and we don't make a specific recommendation.

Closed
173 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Usage of SOAP related terminology should follow SOAP 1.2 terms. Where 1.1 is used, explain differences use of WSS in both environments.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Editors to ensure SOAP terminology is consistent. Hal to investigate inconsistencies between uses of SOAP 1.1 and 1.2, and possibly add material in an Appendix. Agreed to Hal's approach.

Editors to make edits - splitting Hal's issue as separate point

Closed
174 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Examples use earlier versions of SOAP or early drafts of SOAP 1.2. Pass thro examples. Editors to make examples consistent with SOAP 1.1 W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
175 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Status section - still says interim draft. Should say committee spec status W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
176 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Abstract - "No specific type of security token is required the specification is  designed to be extensible (e.g. support multiple security token formats).": insert a comma after 'required', change 'e.g.' to 'i.e. to' W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
177 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security Line: 110 "This specification provides three main mechanisms: ability to send "security token as part...": 'a security token' or 'security tokens'.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
178 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security 139, looks like this should be part of the bulletted list rather than a standalone paragraph.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
179 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security Suggest usage of other formatting mechanisms for refering to bibliographic information than color coding. W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Editors to add square bracket notation.

Closed
180 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security Lines 150-155 seem to be in a different font though the reason for this is unclear W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
181 Editorial Duplicate,

Closed

WSS: Soap message security 170, 171: Its surprising to see the WSS namespace URIs using the xmlsoap.org domain. This domain is the property of Microsoft Corp and  they maintain control over what such namespace URI resolve to. For an  OASIS standard one would expect namespace URIs to use the oasis-open.org domain instead W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
182 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security 175: Update the soap namespace to use the one from the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
183 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security 252 "This document defines syntax and semantics of signatures within  <wsse:Security> element.": 'a ... element' or 'the ... element'. 253 "This document does not specify any signature appearing outside of  <wsse:Security> element.": 'a ... element' or 'the ... element' W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
184 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 255 "The message recipient SHOULD reject a message with an invalid signature, a message that is missing necessary claims and a message whose claims have unacceptable values as such messages are unauthorized (or malformed) message..": Bad grammar, replace with something like "A message recipient SHOULD reject messages containing invalid signatures, messages missing necessary claims or messages whose claims have unacceptable values. Such messages are unauthorized (or malformed)."
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
185 Editorial Closed,

Duplicate

WSS: Soap message security 3.4 Example
Example uses a SOAP 1.1 envelope, change to use SOAP 1.2
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
186 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 400 change 'in a form of a' to 'in the form of  a'. W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
187 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security: 406 "a message MAY have multiple <wsse:Security> header blocks if they are targeted for separate recipients." why can't a message contain multiple wsse:Security header blocks targetted at the same recipient, this seems like an uneccessary/arbitrary restriction. W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
188 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 410 The <wsse:Security> header block without a specified S:role MAY be consumed by anyone, but MUST NOT be removed prior to the final destination or endpoint." What does 'consumed' mean? W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
189 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security: 450 "All compliant implementations MUST declare which profiles they support": how must they declare this ? This seems like an untestable assertion and should probably be dropped W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Editors to remove untestable assertion in line 450 Closed
190 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security: 455 "The optional mustUnderstand SOAP attribute on Security header simply means you are aware of the Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security specification, and there are no implied semantics.": No ! W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00052.html Irving to write up new proposal for mustUnderstand.

We identified the specific intent, Irving to provide verbage

Closed
191 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 495 change 'to be 
the' to 'to be added to the'.
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
192 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security 503: "All compliant implementations MUST be able to process a <wsse:UsernameToken> element." The element is extensible, what should compliant implementations do with extensions they don't understand -  ignore them, fault W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Editors to remove the sentence at line 503

Closed
193 Editorial Duplicate WSS: Soap message security 506 change example to use SOAP 1.2 W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
194 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security : 545 "This attribute is extensible using XML namespaces.": Confusing W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
195 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security : 548 /wsse:BinarySecurityToken/@EncodingType: this seems to be reinventing XML schema to a certain extent W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

TC voted to switch to URIs

Closed
196 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: General: Also, why use qualified names instead of URIs for identifying encoding types W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

TC to review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00016.html Too late to accommodate with changes.

In the last two calls we have had unanimous agreement to not address this in V1 (if at all -- needs further research)

TC voted to switch to URIs

Closed
197 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 558 "All compliant implementations MUST be able to process a <wsse:BinarySecurityToken> element.": same comment as for UsernameToken, what should an implementation do with a token of unknown type or one containing an extension that is not understood W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
198 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 578 "This section presents the basic principles and framework for using XML-based security tokens." Is this section complete ? There's no trace of any principles or a framework W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
199 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: Section 7.1 STR  Same comment as for BinarySecurityToken re extensibility semantics and requiring all implementations to be able to process the element. W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
200 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security Section 8.1 Algorithms: Surprised that there is no mention of SOAP Message Normalization  sop12-n11n) here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-soap12-n11n-20030328/
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
201 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security : 832: "Finally, if a sender wishes to sign a message before encryption, they should alter the order of the signature and encryption  elements inside of the <wsse:Security> header.": alter in what way, this needs to be more specific W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
202 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 839 "care MUST be taken in creating a signing policy that requires signing of parts of the message that might legitimately be altered in  transit.": shouldn't this say "care MUST be taken not to create a signing policy that requires signing of parts of the message that might legitimately be altered in transit." W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
203 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 841 "SOAP applications MUST satisfy the following conditions: The application MUST be capable of processing the required elements defined in the XML Signature specification.": SOAP applications or WSS implementation ? The latter is used elsewhere in the specification W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
204 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 855 "If overall message processing is to remain robust, intermediaries must exercise care that their transformations do not  affect of a digitally signed component.": again a reference to soap12-n11n would seem to be in order here W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

In line 855, editors to clarify what we mean.

Closed
205 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 9.3.1 Encryption: The suggested process for performing encryption would only include 
the data from the original message that was encrypted. All other data would be ommitted, suggest adding an additional step to copy in all the non-encrypted data.
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
206 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 1166 "Parts of a SOAP message may be encrypted in such a way that they can be decrypted by an intermediary that is targeted by one of the SOAP headers. Consequently, the exact behavior of intermediaries with respect to encrypted data is undefined and requires an out-of-band agreement.": more detail required, why is the behaviour undefined W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Hal to write up explanation for 206. Approach is agreed upon. Just have to make text clear.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00060.html

Closed
207 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: 12 Error handling: The specification should define the values of the Fault/Reason/Text, Fault/Code/Value and Fault/Code/Subcode/Value EIIs W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html

Editors to fill out whole table

Closed
208 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security: Section 16. References. This should be updated to point to the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00016.html Closed
209 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: General: Needs a thorough proof reading session W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
210 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: Status: Should status change to achieved committee spec. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
211 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: Notations: 2,1 Notational Conventions (should this be 2.1 - ie '.' instead of ',') ? W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
212 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: Lines 54-59 seem to be in a different font though the reason for this  is unclear. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
213 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 67 "The current SOAP 1.2 namespace URI is used herein...": an old URI is used, needs updating to refelct the ns URI of the SOAP 1.2 W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
214 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: Repeats much of the text from section 2 ! It looks to me like section 3 should be a subsection of section 2. The repeated text needs to be removed.
 
W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
215 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 87 Section number seems to be 'compromised'. There are two section 3s and two section 4s ! Renumbering required. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
216 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 93 "providing": the letters 'd' and 'i' are colored purple for some reason W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
217 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 99 "For example, if a server does not have access to the clear text of a password but does have the hash, then the hash is considered a password equivalent and can be used anywhere where a "password" is indicated in this specification.": its not clear from this description whether such a hash should be contained in a wsse:PasswordText or  wsse:PasswordDigest typed Password element. Please also clean up the formatting for this line. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
218 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 106 "..": there are quite a few instances of double full stops throughout the document, a simple search and replace of ".." for "." is required W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
219 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 126 "1. First, it is recommended that web service providers reject any UsernameToken not using both nonce and creation timestamps.": recommended or RECOMMENDED as per RFC 2119 ? W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
220 Editorial Closed Username Token Profile: 186, 204 Both examples use out of date SOAP 1.2 namespace URIs. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
221 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: General: Examples use earlier versions of SOAP or earlier drafts of SOAP 1.2. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
222 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: Notational conventions - 142 "This document uses the notational conventions defined in SOAP 
Message Security [WS-Security].": SOAP Message Security is colored blue, the reason for this isn't clear. 148 "The XML namespace URIs": XML namespace is colored blue, perhaps 
this should be followed by [XML-ns] ? Further occurances of this are not noted, the editors need to settle on a single citation format
W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
223 Editorial Closed,

Duplicate

X.509 Token Profile: 151, 152 Its surprising to see the WSS namespace URIs using the xmlsoap.org domain... W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
224 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: 153 The SOAP namespace is out of date, needs updating to the SOAP 1.2  Recommendation namespace. W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
225 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: 238, 285, 362 Update envelope namespace to SOAP 1.2 Recommendation namespace W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
226 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: 233: Editorial s/deferencing/dereferencing/. This could do with some rewording to make the intent clear, spelling out exactly what is being recommended (signing the ds:KeyInfo via an Xpointer reference along with the actual data to be signed ??). Also a reference to the definition of the wsse:SecurityTokenReference dereferencing transform 
would be useful here.
W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
227 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: Section 4 References. It would be useful to give URLs to those referenced specifications that are available online W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
228 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: 417 SOAP reference is to SOAP 1.1, should be to SOAP 1.2 Recommendation W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
229 Editorial Closed X.509 Token Profile: 426, 427 references need to be filled in W3C XMLP WG Feedback. Closed
230 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - should clarify if non-repudiation is a goal. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00019.html Closed
231 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Terminology should be cleared up - Remove terms like Proof of possession and "Trust domain" which are not used. Clarify and consistently use "Signature" (vs "Digital Signature" http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00019.html Closed
232 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - Security considerations section includes a list of concerns and potential attacks. This can be misinterpreted to be a complete list. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00019.html

Editors to clarify that this is a partial list of security considerations.

Closed
233 Editorial Closed WSS: Soap message security - We recommend moving the username token specific security considerations to the Username Token Profile and the X.509 certificate token considerations to the X.509 Certificate Token Profile. We further recommend removing the other specific security considerations for this section http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200310/msg00019.html

Editors to move the Username and X509 specific security considerations to their own profiles. Paula to provide security considerations material
 

Paula: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00052.html

Editors to incorporate Hal's changes for 233, with Chris's QName suggestion. Hal to work with Paula to add more detail to Security. More notes in meeting minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00068.html
 

Closed
 
234 Editorial Closed Clarify SAML requirements in SAML profile - which version of SAML. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200310/msg00034.html

Ron to look at the issue and see if it can be closed.

Ron
235 Editorial Closed WSS editorial questions http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00026.html Closed
236 Technical Closed To preserve overall integrity of each <wsu:Timestamp> element, it is
strongly RECOMMENDED that each SOAP role only create or update the
appropriate <wsu:Timestamp> element destined to itself (that is, a
<wsse:Security> header whose actor/role is itself) and no
other<wsu:Timestamp> element
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00061.html. Editors to incorporate Hal's text. Closed
237 Editorial Closed The description of the SecurityTokenReference/Reference/@ValueType attribute would have been more understandable if it hadn't referenced the BinarySecurityToken. After reading that section, I am not sure I understand how these attributes differ in purpose. It seems odd that usage of the ValueType attribute would be recommended for both the wsse:BinarySecurityToken and the wsse:SecurityTokenReference that points to it.
 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200311/msg00062.html Editors to provide explanation / example of text. Closed
238 Technical Closed WSS: Soap message security - Usage of SOAP related terminology should follow SOAP 1.2 terms. Where 1.1 is used, explain differences use of WSS in both environments.
 
Hal to investigate inconsistencies between uses of SOAP 1.1 and 1.2, and possibly add material in an Appendix. Closed
239 Technical Closed ds:X509IssuerSerial element is not a global element http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200312/msg00005.html

Irving to request change to DSIG to expose elements

(waiting for DSIG ack to close)

Closed
240 Technical Closed STR transform: <ds:Transform> doesn't allow ds elements but we require ds:CanonicalizationMethod http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200312/msg00004.html

Agreement to introduce a <wsse:TransformParameters> element which has elements from any namespace and we put C14N method inside of it

Closed
241 Technical Closed Timestamp has value type to allow format other than xs:dateTime, doesn't allow
schema checking, proposal to required xs:dateTime
Editors to make this change Closed
242 Editorial Closed Update SAML profile to use new URLs Editors to make this change Closed
243 Editorial Closed Update XrML profile to use new URLs Editors to make this change Closed
244 Editorial Pending Update Kerberos profile to use new URLs Editors to make this change Editors
245 Editorial Closed Rename SAML profile document Editors to make this change Closed
246 Editorial Closed Rename XrML profile document Editors to make this change Closed
247 Editorial Pending Rename Kerberos profile document Editors to make this change Editors
248 Editorial Closed Rename schema files and use new URLs Editors to make this change Closed
249 Technical Closed the saml token profile depends on non-global attributes in keyidentifier/wsse schema does not support keyIdentifier element extensibility -  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00120.html

Resolution:
non global attributes does not support element extensibility....

SAML has a work around
should schema support mixed content....

Closed
250 Technical Postponed Should ValueType attribute of STR reference element be moved to toplevel STR definition? - post v1 review period  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00121.html
Resolution: Postponed to v1.1. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00062.html
Closed
251 Technical Closed keyIdentifier valuetypes of Username and X509 profiles are defined relative to wsse schema - post v1 review period  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00122.html
Resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00062.html

Closed
252 Editorial Closed Trivial editorial bug on SOAP Message Security - post v1 review period http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00117.html Closed
253 Editorial Closed minor editorial comment on SOAP Message Security - post v1 review period http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00116.html Closed
254 Editorial Pending comments on core spec-  Line 853 (Table) Soap message security 011504 - merged:
SOAP Message Normalization may be used as a"Transform" algorithm,
not a "Canonicalization" algorithm - post v1 review period
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00104.html Resolution: Move to Errata Editors
255 Editorial Closed Editorial comments on core spec - post v1 review period http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00101.html Closed
256 Technical Pending STR attributes are not protected. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00042.html
Resolution: Move to Errata
Editors
257 Technical Postponed STR attrubutes are  not protected http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00042.html Closed
258 Editorial Closed,

Duplicate

Comments on core spec - post v1 review period http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00104.html Closed
259 Editorial Pending Editorial comments on Username Token profile - post v1 review period. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00113.html
Resolution: Move to Errata
Editors
260 Editorial Pending Editorial comments on X.509 Token profile - post v1 review period. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200401/msg00114.html
Resolution: Move to Errata
Editors
261 Editorial Pending How do we handle the sender voucher scenario for SAML http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00034.html
Resolution: Will leave the part of the SAML token spec. relating to sender-vouches unchanged. There will be no key in sender-vouches, subject confirmation.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00062.html
Ron
262 Editorial Closed Comments on sender voucher signed section in SAML interop draft. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00032.html

Resolution: document ok until SAML discussions require change. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00042.html

Closed
263 Technical Postponed Open enumerations - post v1 review period. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200402/msg00011.html Closed
264 Editorial Pending Post review period comments: Errors in WSS core and username/x.509 profile examples. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200403/msg00034.html

Resolution: Editors to place typos in errata. Text changes to be sent to the list before being incorporated into errata.

TC
265 Technical Postponed Encryption of wsse: security header http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200403/msg00011.html Closed
266 Technical Open Manesh: Are AttributeStatements the only statements pertinent to the SAML TP?
Are AuthenticationStatements and AuthorizationDecisionStatements useful in the WSS scenarios?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200403/msg00074.html TC
267 Editorial Open Typos in Sender-Vouches and Holder-of-Key examples listed in Saml interop document. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200404/msg00007.html TC
268 Technical Open How do we secure SOAP attachments? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200404/msg00004.html TC

Notes on Issues

There are currently no additional notes on issues.  In most cases the history of an issue can be easily determined by examining the linked meeting minutes or discussion message and/or previous versions of the issues list.