[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: R: [ubl-security] Security SC schedule
I was working on the same
subject but I’m afraid I didn’t have enough time until now. In previous emails we
exchanged some point where we reached some consensus: -
to recommend enveloped signature, respecting UBL syntax and XAdES syntax,
so that an UBL tool can validate a signed UBL, and a XAdES tool can verify an
UBL document -
to avoid to prescribe any specific envelope. XAdES-BES is the minimum,
but we should avoid to give too much detalil because they depend on the kind of
document, national regulations, other standard body activities (i.e. CEN
eInvoicing2). Maybe we can raccomand to use XAdES-BES for signature generation
whenever possible to achieve the widest possible interoperability and suggest TS
102 904 as general best practice for implementations. About signature policies,
do you think we need them? New Italian rules (due for publication very soon) explicitly
XAdES-EPES... Regards, Andrea -------- -------- Da: Julián Inza
[mailto:julian.inza@albalia.com] Hello Jon, Julian Inza Aldaz Jon Bosak escribió: Hello UBL Security Subcommittee, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]