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

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

Looks like we are just about there.

I suggest if the <SignatureObject> not present the semantics that there is
an enveloped  signature in the document.

I am happy with defining some very basic rules for handling multiple
signatures in the core such as Ed suggests, rather than leaving things
undefined.

Ed, Perhaps you can re-iterate what you suggest regarding handling multiple
signatures.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
> Sent: 10 May 2004 09:18
> To: ed.shallow@rogers.com
> Cc: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dss] Discussion on outstanding issues for the core.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_wor
> kgroup.php.
>
>
>