OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

I don't understand the point to making some sort of comparison with OOXML.
I don't see any mention of it in Wouter's comment, and I am going to simply
focus on what there is to figure out about ODF (1.1 and 1.2).

The following information is not a response from the ODF TC. I have been
looking into this on the ODF Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) TC and I
am providing this information for possible value in clarifying Wouter's and
your examination of the topic.  I am concurrently posting it to the ODF TC
List for the background of the TC members and potential use in creation of
issues to be worked on for ODF 1.2.

CURRENT ODF 1.1 AND IS 26300 SITUATION

  1. Regarding ODF 1.1 and IS 26300, the example manifest in ODF 1.1 is not
correct.  (The schema-required manifest:checksum-type and manifest:checksum
attributes do not appear on the 

Dennis, if you're looking for your ideas to be considered when we work on 
the packaging part, then you want to transcribe your points into one or 
more JIRA issues, or add your analysis as a comment to the original public 
comment (OFFICE-1840).

I'm sure we can address these points to everyone's satisfaction when we 
get to packaging.  In fact, we can probably process some of these 
amplifications as errata for ODF 1.0/1.1 if there is interest.

Regards,

-Rob

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

In the text of my message, there are two paragraphs numbered 3.2.  The
second one should be

  3.3 ODF is silent on what the common text encoding rule for passwords is
expected to be. 

(That is, common text, not comment text.)

 - Dennis



                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200906/msg00004.html
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 15:10
To: 'Peter Dolding'; 'Wouter van Vugt'
Cc: ODF TC List
Subject: [office] RE: (office-comment) Insufficient documentation on ODF
encryption.

[ ... ]

  3.2 In either case, the encoding of the "entered password" and any padding
for input to the SHA-1 digest procedure (or HMAC-SHA-1) is not specified, as
already mentioned in 2.3, above.  RFC2898 is typical in its starting with
bits and not knowing how the bits got there:

  "Throughout this document, a password is considered
   to be an octet string of arbitrary length whose 
   interpretation as a text string is unspecified. 
   In the interest of interoperability, however, it 
   is recommended that applications follow some 
   common text encoding rules."

  3.2 ODF is silent on what the comment text encoding rule for passwords is
expected to be.

[ ... ]