Re: [dss] Further - Request for inclussion to the requirementsdocument

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 04:10 PM 5/7/2003 +0200, cruellas@ac.upc.es wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Dear all,
>
>Further the discussing in the DSS TC meeting this Monday on the proposal
>submitted by ourselves on requirements for signature contents:
>
>We have included in our document information that we consider of general
>relevance to several use cases.  This submission identifies the specific
>parts of the requirements document to which the information is relevant and
>incluse, in italicised text specific proposals.  This includes proposals on
>what text is relevant to the section on Identification (see
>Signer Role).  We don't consider that the XAdES attributes are relevant to a
>single profile.
>
>Thus we still propose that the requirements document is updated as indicated
>in our submission.
>
>As a separate issue we believe that there is a need to clarify what is meant
>profile and core and what is the next stage of drafting the DSS
>specifications.  We include some thoughts on this in a separate message.

I was thinking we should hold off on changes to the requirements doc until 
we decide what is meant by Profiles and Core, and then re-organize the doc 
to reflect whatever we agree on.

For example, my "roadmap" post suggested one of our initial work items be a 
"Protocol Bindings and Signature Profiles" document, containing an "XAdES 
XML-DSIG profile".  If we can agree on this, and mention it in the 
requirements doc, then maybe we don't need to call out XAdES attributes 
individually, as per your submission?

Trevor