Re: [ubl-security] Question about the Dsig Profile as a separate deliverable

[Oriol Bausà Peris <oriol@invinet.org>]

Hi Jon,

I think that incorporating it into the UBL 2.1 spec itself would be the best option

Best regards
Oriol Bausà

El 18/11/2011, a las 18:17, Jon Bosak escribió:

> Hello UBL Security Subcommittee,
> 
> As we begin to finish UBL 2.1, an editorial question has arisen with
> regard to the Digital Signature Profile that you produced last year.
> 
> In the first two public review cycles, the Profile, formatted as an
> independent specification, has been included in the review package (in
> the doc subdirectory).  But from an editorial point of view, it would be
> better either to publish the Profile as a separate deliverable (i.e.,
> make it a Committee Specification) or to incorporate the material into
> the UBL 2.1 specification itself.  Incorporating it into the main UBL
> 2.1 document would make relevant information easier to find.
> 
> Before we come to a decision on this, we need to know whether members of
> the Security Subcommittee have an opinion regarding the need to publish
> the Profile as a separate document.  If there is such a need, then of
> course that will decide the issue.
> 
> Please consider this question and let us know what you think.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jon Bosak
> Chair, OASIS UBL TC
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-security-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-security-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>