AW: AW: AW: [dss-x] Multisignature individual report: more usage of ValidDetail/InvalidDetail elements

["Huehnlein, Detlef" <Detlef.Huehnlein@secunet.com>]

Hallo Juan Carlos,

thanks for your mail and your proposal. 
Yes, this could be a possibility to define the
structure of the report in a schema AND use 
something similar as the structures (ValidDetail, InvalidDetail, 
IndeterminedDetail etc.) defined in the Core. 

While this similarity would be the advantage, the resulting
schema is somewhat more complex and it does not seem
to be clear, whether the cost/benefit-ratio would
suggest to prefer this variant. 

Are there other opinions in the TC?

BR,
  Detlef


 




> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Juan Carlos Cruellas [mailto:cruellas@ac.upc.edu] 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. Juli 2008 19:11
> An: dss-x
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [dss-x] Multisignature individual 
> report: more usage of 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/MultiSignatureVerificationRep
ortsProfile
> 
> 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
> >   
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS 
> TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your 
> TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
oups.php 
> 
>