[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (OFFICE-3030) Public Comment:Comments on Digital Signatures in ODF 1.2 Part 3
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3030?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Michael Brauer updated OFFICE-3030: ----------------------------------- Resolution: There are 3 issues at question here: 1) Why don't we use the XMLDSig 1.1 spec instead of 1.0? 1.1 is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. Also, 1.1 is a breaking change to 1.0 - a 1.1 parser won't parse a 1.1 signature, and there are 1.0 elements that are no longer considered valid. When 1.1 moves out of draft, it would be a substantial change. 2) Why don't we use XML signature properties? XML signature properties is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. In addition, there is no need for anything but the signing time, and that's covered by XAdES already. There's also nothing preventing an implementer from using these extensions if they liked - it wouldn't break an existing parser. 3) Why not use the RELAX NG schemas? The RNG schemas are in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. All 3 suggestion may be reconsidered for a future ODF version when the mentioned specifications have been approved. was: There are 3 issues at question here: 1) Why don't we use the XMLDSig 1.1 spec instead of 1.0? 1.1 is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. Also, 1.1 is a breaking change to 1.0 - a 1.1 parser won't parse a 1.1 signature, and there are 1.0 elements that are no longer considered valid. When 1.1 moves out of draft, it would be a substantial change. 2) Why don't we use XML signature properties? XML signature properties is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. In addition, there is no need for anything but the signing time, and that's covered by XAdES already. There's also nothing preventing an implementer from using these extensions if they liked - it wouldn't break an existing parser. 3) Why not use the RELAX NG schemas? The RNG schemas are in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft. Dennis: I've copied David's comments (to which I fully agree) and mine to the resolution and set this issue to ODF-Next > Public Comment: Comments on Digital Signatures in ODF 1.2 Part 3 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFFICE-3030 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3030 > Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Public Review > Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05 > Reporter: Robert Weir > Assignee: Dennis Hamilton > Priority: Blocker > Fix For: ODF-Next > > > Copied from office-comment list > Original author: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> > Original date: 10 Jul 2010 12:43:50 -0000 > Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201007/msg00001.html -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]