[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Timestamping
At 03:38 PM 4/3/2003 -0500, Robert Zuccherato wrote: >Actually, I would prefer to just leave a general extension mechanism that >could be used by later work. For example, in Entrust's timestamping >submission we included an <Extensions> element: > > <element name="Extensions"> > <complexType> > <sequence> > <any namespace="##any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" >processContents="lax" /> > </sequence> > </complexType> > </element> > >I don't think there is any need to include any tags at this time unless we >have a clear use for them. Makes sense, but we need to consider how adding linking data into the <Extensions> element will interact with the timestamp's signature. From our earlier discussion, we decided (I think) that something like a <TimeStampInfo> in the Entrust proposal should be able to be inside an enveloping signature *or* inside a signed attribute. But with a linking scheme, a signature may not be used at all. Or there may be a signature *and* linking data - in Dimitri's explanation, it seemed like you'd want the signature to cover some of the linking data but not all of it (because creating the timestamp might be a 2-phase process, where you first get some linking data with a signature, and then later, at the end of a round, get the rest of the linking data). So I guess as long as we allow the signature to be optional, and to cover some of the data in the <Extensions> element or not, we retain the ability to support linking schemes. Trevor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]