OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dss-x message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: AW: AW: [dss-x] Multisignature individual report: more usageof ValidDetail/InvalidDetail elements


Hi Detlef,

Sorry for not reacting before, it is just that I have been doing some 
thought to this, and in fact, I think that there could be a way of using 
similar structures to the ones in the core, and defining the logical 
structure in the same xml schema....

Could you please take a look to the wiki:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dss-x/MultiSignatureVerificationReportsProfile

Below the mark "25-07-2008. [BR] [BR]"?

Actually, I have not built at hand a XML doc aligned with this schema, 
but I think that it would be aligned with what we have been talking 
about. The xml schema uses group of elements

The schema has a drawback, which is that it requires a type definition 
for each item whose validity is being reported: certificatepath, 
certificate, signature value, signature format, etc....

After all this work, and now one question if the mechanism specified in 
the core for reporting details may not be so easily used in the profiles 
and allow to specify the structure in the xml schema, should we put this 
issue on the table?

Regards

Juan Carlos.

Huehnlein, Detlef escribió:
> Hi Juan Carlos, 
>
> as briefly discussed yesterday, there are pros and cons 
> related to this proposal. 
>
> Among the pros is certainly the fact, that we would 
> only make use of the structures (ValidDetail, InvalidDetail,...)
> defined in the Core and hence the "basic" and "advanced" report would be
> based on equal grounds. 
>
> On the other hand there seems to be a serious argument against 
> this proposal, as we would not be able to define the logical structure 
> of the advanced verification report as schema, but only in text form,
> which may make it much harder to reach interoperability and assess conformity. 
> As those verification reports will especially be considered by auditors, it 
> would be of great value, if there would be an easy possibility 
> to check whether a verification report "seems to be complete", because it 
> satisfies a certain schema. 
>
> Because of the con sketched above I would prefer to keep the
> schema-based approach. 
>
> @all: Are there any other opinions?
>
> BR,
>   Detlef  
>   



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]