Re: [ubl-security] Re: Sample instances

[Andrea Caccia <andrea.caccia@studiocaccia.com>]

At 2010-08-12 18.49 CET, G. Ken Holman wrote:

> I note from the OASIS ODF committee that the 1.2 signature schema I'm using is labeled "cd05" which means it is not finalized:
> 
>  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office
> 
> Putting this out for PRD1 is fine, but there is a risk that it may not be finalized/approved as an OASIS standard by the time we go to PRD2.  The risk is that if we go out for PRD2 and possibly even CS1 and OS with our specification that the ODF committee may change the schema fragment.
> 
> I can understand the desire to use the ODF wrapper for signatures, because I can imagine that there will be ODF signing software applications out there.  But will they be able to find the ODF signature if it isn't in an ODF document?  Said another way, would the software reject the document because it isn't ODF before it goes into the document looking for an ODF signature?
> 
> What I'm leading to is, should we replace the ODF construct with the following:
> 
>  <ublsig:document-signatures xmlns:ublsig="urn:X-figure-this-out-later">
> 
My idea was not to reinvent the wheel on one hand and to reuse an OASIS definition.
Another syntax available we are currently reusing in ETSI is the OCF "signatures.xml" file syntax that uses a <signatures> wrapper, see: http://www.idpf.org/ocf/ocf1.0/download/ocf10.htm
I think this can be helpful with detached signature profile to package the signature in a standard container such as OCF (and ETSI Assosiated Signature that will be ready possibly later this year) that I guess has some working implementation out there and will have more in future.
Something like <ocf:signatures> could work?
Is it possible to report this to ODF committee and ask them to align their definition?

Andrea