Re: [dss] FW: DSS RequestBaseType and VerifyRequest

On 1/27/06, Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com> wrote:

In an earlier version of the schema, i.e. pre RequestAbstractType, the cardinality for InputDocuments as it appears in SignRequest and VerifyRequest, differ. One way to handle this is to push InputDocuments back down in the hierarchy, but I'll check if there are any options.

Regards,
Tommy

On 1/27/06, Nick Pope <pope@secstan.com> wrote:

Tommy, Andreas,

Is this something we missed in defining RequestBaseType?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos González-Cadenas [mailto:gonzalezcarlos@netfocus.es]
Sent: 26 January 2006 17:43
To: 'Nick Pope'
Subject: DSS RequestBaseType and VerifyRequest

Nick,

In the RequestBaseType definition from the DSS Core 3, the element InputDocuments is mandatory. As VerifyRequest extends from RequestBaseType, it's mandatory to include at least one input document. This excludes the case of enveloping (an XML Signature with a reference to objects contained in ds:Objects) and attached (i.e. an CMS Signature with encapsulated content) signatures, where just a dss:Signature object would be sufficient.

I see that in former documents (i.e. wd34), RequestBaseType contained

< xs:element name ="RequestBaseType" abstract=" true">

< xs:sequence>

< xs:element ref=" dss:OptionalInputs" minOccurs="0 "/>

< xs:element ref=" dss:InputDocuments" minOccurs="0 "/>

</ xs:sequence>

< xs:attribute name ="RequestID" type=" xs:string"

use ="optional"/>

< xs:attribute name ="Profile" type=" xs:anyURI" use=" optional"/>

</ xs:element>

therefore allowing optionally the inputdocuments.

Is it only an editorial issue or maybe do you plan to handle these cases differently?.

Many thanks in advance,

Carlos

Carlos González-Cadenas
Chief Security Officer

Diagonal 188-198 Planta 2
08018 Barcelona
tel: 902 303 393
fax: 902 303 394
gonzalezcarlos@netfocus.es
www.netfocus.es

dss message