[Standards] XEP-0258 comments

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Fri Feb 12 14:27:38 UTC 2010


On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:06 AM, John Keeping wrote:

> In XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) it is unclear what the constraints
> are for the location of <securitylabel/> elements.  For reliable
> application of labels to content there needs to be a clearer indication
> of precisely where in the XML a label can appear and what it should
> apply to.
> 
> It seems from paragraph 9 of section 5 that the intent is to label only
> complete stanzas (as opposed to permitting content labels that apply
> only to parts of the stanza).

This is the intent.  That is, it is intended that that the <securitylabel/> element apply to the stanza as a whole, and that generally a stanza would contain zero or no <securitylabel/> elements and, when present, placed appropriately.

I note that there may well be, depending on the design of stanza signing solution used, the possibility that a stanza would contain more than one <securitylabel/> elements.  This case will need to spelled out in detail once we have an appropriate signing solution such that it clear which label is effective.  (I'm currently drafting a XMPP stanza signing solution based upon encapsulating XML DSIGs.)

> This could be made clearer by expanding
> sections 5.1 and 5.2 to specify that <securitylabel/> elements can occur
> only as direct children of the <message/> element.
> 
> For <iq/> stanzas the same approach cannot be taken since only one child
> of the <iq/> element is permitted.  Is the expectation here that any
> <securitylabel/> element (no matter how deeply nested) should apply to
> the entire stanza? If so, how should multiple <securitylabel/> elements

> (possibly at different depths) be handled?

It is expected that the <securitylabel/> be a direct child of the <iq/> element's direct child, and that it applies to the stanza as a whole.

Note that the data carried by the <iq/> might contain <securitylabel/> elements, such as in label catalog transfer.  Such labels do not apply to the stanza.

I will try to address your comments in the next revision of XEP 258, which I am now working on.

> 
> 
> [ One other minor comment, in the second sentence of paragraph 6 of
> section 5 "A policy-aware may..." should be "A policy-aware client may..." ]

Good catch.


> 
> 
> John
> 
> -- 
> John Keeping
> Metanate Ltd, UK
> www.metanate.com (Software consultancy)
> www.schemus.com (Data synchronisation)
> 
> This e-mail and all attachments it may contain is confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
> Any views or opinions presented are those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of Metanate Ltd.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
> error and that any use, dissemination, printing, forwarding or copying
> of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  Please contact the sender if
> you have received this e-mail in error.




More information about the Standards mailing list