AW: AW: [dss-x] Multisignature individual report: more usage of ValidDetail/InvalidDetail elements

["Huehnlein, Detlef" <Detlef.Huehnlein@secunet.com>]

Hi Juan Carlos, 

as briefly discussed yesterday, there are pros and cons 
related to this proposal. 

Among the pros is certainly the fact, that we would 
only make use of the structures (ValidDetail, InvalidDetail,...)
defined in the Core and hence the "basic" and "advanced" report would be
based on equal grounds. 

On the other hand there seems to be a serious argument against 
this proposal, as we would not be able to define the logical structure 
of the advanced verification report as schema, but only in text form,
which may make it much harder to reach interoperability and assess conformity. 
As those verification reports will especially be considered by auditors, it 
would be of great value, if there would be an easy possibility 
to check whether a verification report "seems to be complete", because it 
satisfies a certain schema. 

Because of the con sketched above I would prefer to keep the
schema-based approach. 

@all: Are there any other opinions?

BR,
  Detlef  




 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Juan Carlos Cruellas [mailto:cruellas@ac.upc.edu] 
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. Juli 2008 15:01
> An: Huehnlein, Detlef
> Cc: dss-x
> Betreff: Re: AW: [dss-x] Multisignature individual report: 
> more usage of ValidDetail/InvalidDetail elements
> 
> Yes, it is true. Actually, it would be a profile of the 
> ValidDetai/InvalidDetail/IncompleteDetail what it could be 
> defined. We may assess the pros and cons of both options and 
> then decide...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Juan Carlos.
> Huehnlein, Detlef escribió:
> > Hallo Juan Carlos,
> >
> > thanks for your mail. I'm not sure, whether I understood 
> your proposal 
> > correctly, but it seems to me that in this approach the logical 
> > structure of the report is not defined by a schema, but only by a 
> > textual description in the profile document.
> > Did I get this right? 
> >
> >
> > BR,
> >  Detlef
> >
> >   
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Juan Carlos Cruellas [mailto:cruellas@ac.upc.edu]
> >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Juli 2008 20:39
> >> An: dss-x
> >> Betreff: [dss-x] Multisignature individual report: more usage of 
> >> ValidDetail/InvalidDetail elements
> >>
> >> Dear Detlef,
> >>
> >> After reading again the draft profile, I would like to make a more 
> >> general comment than those that I did before.
> >>
> >> I think that the draft could make a better use of structures 
> >> specified in the core for providing details of the 
> processing of the 
> >> signature, and yet keep most of the structures defined in 
> the draft.
> >>
> >> Very briefly, I think that we should use the elements 
> >> dss:InvalidDetail, dss:ValidDetail or dss:IndeterminateDetail for:
> >>
> >> 1. Identifying the element on which the report is 
> providing details 
> >> 2. Providing additional information on that element.
> >>
> >> I have created a page in the wiki with three examples showing an 
> >> individual report on a signature that is OK, another 
> reporting on a 
> >> signature that has problems with the signature algorithm 
> and another 
> >> reporting on a signature with a revoked certificate as reported in 
> >> the corresponding CRL. You will find it at:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dss-x/MultiSignatureVerificationRep
> >>     
> > ortsProfile
> >   
> >> I think that almost all the structures that you have defined for 
> >> reporting would remain the same, but the usage of the 
> >> ValidDetail/InvalidDetail would keep it more aligned with the core.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Juan Carlos.
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the 
> OASIS TC that 
> >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> >>     
> > oups.php
> >   
> >>     
> 
>