Re: [ubl-security] Where to go from here - Final proposal?

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

Il giorno 28/ago/2010, alle ore 15.41, G. Ken Holman ha scritto:

> At 2010-08-28 15:37 +0200, Andrea Caccia wrote:
>> Il giorno 28/ago/2010, alle ore 14.58, G. Ken Holman ha scritto:
>> 
>> > I'm willing to accept the above and I can commit to having it changed (if you accept my minor tweaks in names) for Jon for Monday morning if others can quickly endorse Andrea's suggestion with my XML- and UBL-related changes.
>> 
>> I agree on all your proposed changes, thank you for fixing the remaining issues.
> 
> Thank you, Andrea ... one unanswered question I asked:  did you want "0..1" or "0..n" for <ds:Signature> under <sig:SignatureInformation>?

I would say 0..1 because this avoid the ambiguity of having a co-signature in the same sig:SignatureInformation or in a sibling sig:SignatureInformation, as you highlighted in a previous mail, and to have a more effective use of cbc:ID inside sig:SignatureInformation to locate exactly one signature. This can help also in error reporting (to reference exactly the signature(s) having problems) or any kind of signaling/logging etc.
I don't think any signature software would care of having contiguous ds:Signature elements, there is no constraint on this in XAdES or XMLDSIG.

Andrea