RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core.

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 02:05 PM 5/7/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Nick,
>
>    I agree. When you boil it right down, we're fundamentally talking about
>[Optionality] on 2 elements. I can't help but think that this is entirely
>consistent with the spirit of the "extensible" core protocol. But I would
>like to make sure that these very specific verification scenarios will not
>pose a problem. So towards that end, can you (i.e. Trevor) me a few signed
>documents which embody the verification concerns you have ?

I'm concerned about protocol complexity, not any particular type of signature.

Anyways, I think there's consensus on the 1st of our 3 issues:
  - enveloping CMS should be explicitly supported
  - enveloping XML-DSIG " " " "

As for the other issues, it seems there's consensus that we should allow 
<SignatureObject> to be absent, but I'm not sure there's agreement on the 
semantics.  I thought Nick was arguing they would be undefined, and Ed was 
arguing the server would verify all signatures that were present.

If we can decide on that, I'll write something up.

Trevor