RE: [dss-comment] Public Comment

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

Carlos,

Thanks for your comments.

Firstly, we are aware of the problem with Unique Particle Attribution and
this will be addressed in the next Commitee draft to be issued shortly.

Secondly, your suggestion regarding archiving signatures is interesting.  I
don't believe that a full archive protocol would be within the scope but
they may be aspects of archiving signatures that warrent inclusion.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: 22 August 2005 09:19
> To: dss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dss-comment] Public Comment
>
>
> Comment from: gonzalezcarlos@netfocus.es
>
> Name: Carlos González-Cadenas
>
> Title: Technical Director
>
> Organization: netfocus
>
> Regarding Specification: DSS Comittee Draft 2
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> First of all, I would like to report a XML Schema constraint
> violation (Unique Particle Attribution)
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-nonambig), in the elements
> "InputDocuments" and "Timestamp", in particular with <xs:any
> processContents="lax"/>
>
>
>
> This problem is easily resolved for "InputDocuments" using
> namespace=”##other”, but is somewhat more complicated for the
> Timestamp element (maybe requiring some structural redefinition).
>
>
>
> Also, I would like to know if you are thinking about extending
> the protocol suite included in DSS, for example, adding a
> signature archive protocol, very useful for providing signature
> archiving/long-term archiving.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Carlos
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dss-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>