[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DSS-Comments (Multiple signature verification, verification report and fixed request/response type)
Dear Detlef Huehnlein, Thanks very much for your comment. Item 1 The note in 4.3.1 which current states "Multiple signature on multiple documents is not supported." Should be changed to: "The procedures for handling Multiple signature on multiple documents are not defined in this Core specification, but however such procedures, along with any optional elements that may be required, may be defined in profiles of this specification." Item 2 As suggested a more structured verification report output could be added in a profile. Item 3. We will consider this suggestion as part of the future work of DSS. Regards Nick Pope Subject: DSS-Comments (Multiple signature verification, verification report and fixed request/response type) From: "Huehnlein, Detlef" <Detlef.Huehnlein@secunet.com> To: <dss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:53:11 +0100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Dear DSS-team, first of all I would like to beg your pardon that I was not able to send the comments during your regular public review period. We are currently working on a project for the German government, which aims at specifying a universal framework for using smart cards and related cryptographic functions like the generation and verification of electronic signatures for example. As our framework is based on webservice interfaces, we would like to make use of the DSS-core profile or the XAdES-profile (or define a specific profile which fits our needs). While most parts of the current DSS-core-draft seem to be very well designed (congratulations!) and DSS hence has the potential to become widely used in practice, there are a few points, which (from our point of view) seem to provide serious limitations, which seemingly can not be fixed by profiles based on the core standard. 1. Multiple signature verification ---------------------------------- In section 4.3.1 you note that you do NOT support multiple signatures on multiple documents. Why? A) Multiple signatures ---------------------- From our point of view it seems to be very important to support multiple signatures (and timestamps) in one document, especially if one thinks about aspects of long term archival of signed documents. B) Multiple documents --------------------- In batch scenarios (e.g. for eGovernment or eBilling purposes) it is necessary to be able to verify very many signatures in a very short period of time and hence is desirable to feed multiple documents to a verification server in a single request. Due to your (seemingly artificial) limitation in section 4.3.1 it does not seem possible to realize both requirements simultaneously. For the sake of generality of the core standard this does not seem to be a very good solution. 2. Verification report ---------------------- Closely related with this point is the fact that your <ProcessingDetails> consist of a flat structure grouped "valid", "indeterminate" and "invalid". If you would like to verify a batch of signatures and you would like to have a closer look at the in{valid/determinate} signatures you would need to search the entire structure in order to extract all errors and warnings for a specific signature, which will be rather cumbersome if the batch sizes are large or there are multiple signatures per document. For such usage scenarios it would seem to be better to have some sort of structured verification report for a single signature. Is it possible for a profile to redefine the <ProcessingDetails>-structure? 3. Request / Response Type -------------------------- A last point is that you probable should think about the possibility that profiles based on the core standard are able to redefine the basic request- and response-types such that it is possible to use some DSS-profile as part of larger webservice-infrastructures in which the request- and response-types are fixed (and probably not identical to the ones specified in the DSS-core). It would be nice if you would decide to think about the comments above and let me know what happens with the suggested points. Best regards, Detlef Huehnlein -- Dipl. Inform. (FH) Dr. rer. nat. Detlef Hühnlein Partner secunet Security Networks AG Sudetenstraße 96247 Michelau Telefon +49 9571 896479 Mobil +49 171 9754980 detlef.huehnlein@secunet.com www.secunet.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please delete it from your system and notify the System Administrator at Thales e-Security +44 (0)1844 201800 or mail postmaster@thales-esecurity.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]