Action on CG: Review Section 3.5.2

["Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas" <gonzalezcarlos@netfocus.es>]

Comments for section 3.5.2:

 

1. Schema Definition: I remember that in the editorial telco we’ve agreed to use the <UpdateSignatureInstructionType>, so this definition should be changed.
2. Line 1066: In both scenarios?. If so, make it clear.
3. Line 1068, 1092 and 1104: Why only in scenario b?. A timestamp should be added independently from the verification result. For me, don’t verify in any case.
4. Lines 1074 and 1077: There’s no <dss:timestamp> element.
5. XML Timestamps on XML Signatures:
1. What about enveloped signatures in scenario a… we cannot return them inside the signature object.
2. Does the scenario b support enveloped signatures?. (Not explicitly denied)
6. RFC3161 Timestamp on XML signature:
1. What do we timestamp?. The placement is explained but I can’t find any details about what to timestamp (former ones do include this).
2. Enveloped signature concerns in point 5 also apply.

 

Best Regards,

 

Carlos

 

 

Carlos Gonzalez-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