RE: [dss] Fwd: RE: UPU CPC EPM Positioning Proposal vis-a-vis the OASIS DSS

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 10:52 AM 7/10/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Trevor,
>
>Sorry, yes I agree that we should use the same protocol.
>
>Unless it is already there and I have missed it, I suggest that we should
>add that there is a protocol to obtain a time-stamp token (and verify
>time-stamp token ???), and that this requirement may be met using the
>signing request / response.

I agree, though at least Ed disagrees, let's see what anyone else says.


>I also missed the words hidden in 3.1.2:
>"We will also define an XML Timestamp Token format, which will be similar to
>an RFC 3161 TimeStampToken, and can be used for time-stamping XML-DSIG
>signatures.  We will leave this format extensible to support linking schemes
>in the future."
>
>I suggest that is made more prominent by putting a new sub-heading
>"3.1.3 Time-stamp token"

Good idea.


>Finally, I would also perhaps suggest that the XML time-stamping can be
>provided through a profile of DSS, and so that we add to 3.10.2:
>
>- Time-stamping service profile.

I'll change "XML Time-Stamp Binding" to "XML Time-Stamp Binding and 
Profile", and in general change 3.10 to talk not just about "Signature 
Profiles" but "Protocol Profiles" as well, since these have played an 
increasing role in our discussions.

Trevor