Application Profile

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

Trevor,

(I am opening this up to the group)

a) I personally believe that Application Profiles should be able to be
selected through the schema.

However, the requirements document need not specify how the application
profile is signalled as this is a protocol requirement, on that it can be
indicated either implicetlky or explicetly.  So I suggest that you leave it
open in the requirements document and keep it in the schema for the moment.

b) In 3.1.2 Can you update the list of profiles to include the two mentioned
at the recent DSS phone conference (Corporate Seal and profile for German
signature legislation), preceded by the words.  "Profiles are currently
being considered for: ..."

c) In 3.1.2 I don't follow the text "A combination of these profiles yeilds
an Application Profile".  When is a profile and application profile?  Many
of the profiles listed are called "application profiles".

I suggest that you remove this sentence.

Nick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
> Sent: 13 August 2003 22:22
> To: Nick Pope; OASIS DSS TC
> Subject: RE: [dss] Agenda for todays DSS
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>...