Re: [ubl-security] Comments regarding the UBL signature mechanism from the Spanish Ministry of Finance

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2010-09-19 12:48 +0200, Andrea Caccia wrote:
>Hi Jon,
>thanks for forwarding us these comments.
>Here is my view on the mentioned issues:
>- Use of cac:Signature is not mandated. Even if I can agree that in 
>many contexts it is of no use (and can be avoided) I do not exclude 
>it can be useful and IMO we have to preserve it as it is already 
>part of UBL 2.0. In cases where an UBL document can have more than a 
>single signature for different purposes it can be helpful to 
>associate correctly each (set of) signatures to the document.
>- The structure in the extension, with the price of a very little 
>overhead, can accommodate use cases where more than a (set of) 
>signatures is associated to a document for different purposes. There 
>was a long discussion on the Certificate of Origin and the proposed 
>solution has be designed to satisfy the additional requirements that arose.
>
>Any other/different view in this SC?

I wholeheartedly support Andrea's comments.  I'm pleased that someone 
took the time to comment, but I believe the comment is not compelling 
enough to change the structure as has been proposed in PRD1.  Thank 
you, Andrea.

. . . . . . . . Ken

--
XSLT/XQuery training:   after http://XMLPrague.cz 2011-03-28/04-01
Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal