RE: [dss] Revised ANSI X9.95 liaison

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

Thanks for your input Trevor,

I have updated the liaison as per the 1st two editorial changes that you
suggest.

I agree that the text "However, having both options would reduce
interoperability..." is slightly redundant but I think it is worth keeping
it in to emphasise the point.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
> Sent: 08 October 2004 06:48
> To: Nick Pope
> Subject: Re: [dss] Revised ANSI X9.95 liaison
>
>
>
> At 03:10 PM 10/6/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >Robert & all DSSers
> >
> >As discussed on Mondays conference call I have updated the
> liaison to ANSI
> >X9 to tell them how to include the choice of their Timestamp
> token and the
> >DSS XML Sign based time-stamp token within a generic XML token structure,
> >instead of suggesting that the DSS core explicetly include the
> ANSI token as
> >an item in the choice.
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Some wording suggestions:
>
> "We believe that s/the/a/ token structure with XML Signature using XML
> Schema would fit in with the direction..."
>
> "Within this structure we would be s/pleased to agree/happy to work/ with
> ANSI X9 s/on a common content/to standardize on a single TstInfo format/.
>
> "However, having both options would reduce interoperability..."  Is this
> sentence redundant with the previous paragraph?
>
>
> Trevor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

DSS-X9.95-liaison-rev2.doc