RE: [dss] Agenda for todays DSS

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 11:31 AM 8/13/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Trevor,
>
>The minutes should follow shortly.
>
>On the requirements document there is some words that was to be added on
>compound operations which Ed had provided and he will send again to you.
>
>The wording in the requirements document on policy and profiles was
>acceptable rather than the text included in the minutes of the f2f meeting.

Just to clarify - in the Requirements Doc, it treats Application Profile as 
an Implicit Parameter.

I had thought we were converging to that opinion on Day 1, but then on Day 
2 we added ApplicationProfile to the schema, and it was in Juan Carlos' 
initial schema.  So I left it in the schema I published, under 
SignRequest/ServerGuidance/ApplicationProfile.

So I could either change the Requirements Doc to reflect this, by adding a 
new point under 3.5, or I could take this out of the schema.  What is your 
reading of group consensus on this point?



>Unless you believe that a issue remains following Juan Carlos' email on this
>question the aim is to have the requirements document signed off at the next
>meeting if you can do a further update following receipt of text from Ed.
>Will you be able to attend the next phone conference on 25th Aug?
>
>Ed also pointed out the the Options element was missing from the schema.

There were "extensibility points" added into ServerGuidance and 
SignatureOptions with the below idiom.  Probably we should extensibility 
points to the SignRequest and OutputOptions as well.  Is this a good way of 
doing extensibility?

<xs:complexType name="AnyType" mixed="true">
         <xs:sequence>
                 <xs:any namespace="##any"/>
         </xs:sequence>
         <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any"/>
</xs:complexType>

.
.
         <xs:element name="Other" type="AnyType" minOccurs="0" 
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
.
.


Trevor