One comment and one question

[Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>]

Dear DSS-X TC members,

1. I would like to pass you a comment received to the ETSI TS 119 442 draft that was put in public domain for getting comments of stakeholders. Despite the fact the comment was raised for this document, I think that it actually is a comment for DSS-X core v2.0. The comment was as follows:

"XML elements are named as follows:
-    InputDocuments
-    SignatureObject
-    DocumentWithSignature
JSON elements are named as follows:
-    inDocs
-    sigObj
-    docWithSignature

Why are the names different, regardless of the format used? If the names are the same, this will make the data more easily machine-processable.    For all elements, use the same name.
For example:
-    XML: InputDocuments
-    JSON: inputDocuments"

The ETSI TS 119 442 just re-uses as much as possible the components specified in DSS-X core v2.0, so their names in XML and JSON are the same as the names in this document. That is why I consider that this is more a comment for DSS-X than for ETSI ESI. I understand that the rationale for making the names different has been the somehow implicit tendency within JSON to use shorter names than in XML. I ignore, though, whether you have made any trade-off between this implicit tendency and the potential burden that different names could put on developers according to the received comment. Could you please let us know your views on this particular issue?

2. I would like also to ask you a question, also related with a comment received. The comment was the following one:

"If the signature contains a ds:Manifest, and if the user wants to validate some documents from the ds:Manifest, in which element the associated documents should be included ?   

Maybe those documents could be included into InputDocuments."

My understanding that anything referenced within a signed ds:Manifest, within the VerifyRequest message should be passed to the server within a sub-component of dss2:InputDocuments. Could you please confirm this point?

Thank you very much indeed for your feedback

Best regards

Juan Carlos Cruellas.