Re: [dss-x] Promotion of DSS-X core 2.0 to CS

[Andreas Kuehne <kuehne@trustable.de>]

Hi Detlef,

yes, I agree that a promotion of the current draft to CS makes sense. My current list of minors are

- move of paragraph 'Multi-Signature Creation' from section 'Verification' up to 'Signing'
- minor fix in 6.2.2 '[...] the server returns one of the first _three_ ResultMinor[...]' to '[...] the server returns one of the first _two_ ResultMinor[...]'
- 6.2.2: fix of wrong reference to the component of 'Result'

@all: Please post other findings!

If we agree upon this way forward on Monday's call (and Chet does not reject our view of 'minor changes') I'll setup a ballot for the migration to CS.

Proposal of a version DSS-X core 2.1:
As I already mentioned the use of RFC 2119 wording in the core is not consistent and hampers the demarcation of assertions. Fixing this would require a manageable effort ut would introduce a big number of editorial changes to the document.
But working with Burcin's testing documents I noticed that the error handling seems to be a bit underspecified. There is a list of ResultMinors (Chapter 9.2) provided but the conditions when to return which ResultMinor is lacking. E.g. the value of 'IncorrectSignature' is never referenced or explained anywhere else. Therefore I would propose to assemble the details we learn working with the test infrastructure and reflect it in a version 2.1 of the core.

Greetings,

Andreas

> Hi,
>
> IMHO we should fix the minors and then move it to CS.
>
> BR,
>  dh
>
> -----UrsprÃngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org <dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org> Im Auftrag von Andreas Kuehne
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2019 16:03
> An: dss-x <dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Betreff: [dss-x] Promotion of DSS-X core 2.0 to CS
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I checked back with the TC Handbook regarding the promotion of the current draft of the core to CS. There is another 7 day ballot required and some work to do by the admins (http://docs.oasis-open.org/TChandbook/Reference/CommitteeSpecs.html).
>
> So I guess we are not that far from having the core 2.0 in the 'CS'
> state. But I would prefer to review the core regarding the RFC 2119 wording and assertion demarcation (and a few other minors). I presume that the volume of the 'assertion' changes may require another review period.
>
> We could move the current draft to CS and later on do the process with a core 2.0.1 again. This approach will not produce too much overhead as there are many other documents in the pipeline for the same process (Metadata, X.509, JWS).
>
>
> What's your opinion?
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> Andreas
>
> --
> Andreas KÃhne 
>
> Chair of OASIS DSS-X
>  
> phone: +49 177 293 24 97
> mailto: kuehne@trustable.de
>
> Trustable Ltd. Niederlassung Deutschland Gartenheimstr. 39C - 30659 Hannover Amtsgericht Hannover HRB 212612
>
> Director Andreas KÃhne
>
> Company UK Company No: 5218868 Registered in England and Wales 
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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_workgroups.php 
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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_workgroups.php 
>


-- 
Andreas KÃhne 

Chair of OASIS DSS-X
 
phone: +49 177 293 24 97 
mailto: kuehne@trustable.de

Trustable Ltd. Niederlassung Deutschland Gartenheimstr. 39C - 30659 Hannover Amtsgericht Hannover HRB 212612

Director Andreas KÃhne

Company UK Company No: 5218868 Registered in England and Wales

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature