FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment

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

Can anyone (Trevor?) recall for the reason for excluding of certain elements
of RFC 3161 TSTInfo in the DSS XML timestamp.

I think Nonce was not necessary because DSS protocol provides elements to
relate request and response.  Not sure why no extensability or version
number.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org]
Sent: 12 January 2006 12:22
To: dss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dss-comment] Public Comment


Comment from: inma@dif.um.es

Name: Inma Marín

Title: IT Consultant

Organization: University of Murcia

Regarding Specification: DSS Core Committee Draft 3 (DSS Core Elements)



As far as <dss:TstInfo> element is concerned (within <dss:Timestamp> element
which contains an XML Timestamp Token) and, after comparing it with TSTInfo
element in RFC 3161, I noticed that <dss:TstInfo> does not include some
elements that are contained in RFC 3161 TSTInfo, such as, "nonce" and
"extensions". I wonder why these differences exist regarding RFC 3161. Could
you be so kind as to tell me why the structure of a <dss:TstInfo> is
different from RFC3161 TSTInfo, please?



Is it a mistake or an oversight? I can not understand why they are not
incoporated to <dss:TstInfo>. Thank you very much in advance.



Inma.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dss-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org