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

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 03:23 PM 5/16/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:

>Trevor,
>
>I believe we agree on the organisation of the work.  Maybe the terms used
>could better:
>
>Work area 1 is:
>  - request / response protocol
>  - "core" elements of a signature which are additions to those already
>specified:
>    * XML Time-stamp and time-mark elements
>    * XML requestor identity elements
>
>Work Area 2 is bringing together signature elements and request / response
>for a certain "class" of DSS service.  This will include classes of service
>based on:
>  - XAdES
>  - CMS
>  - XMLDSIG

I agree with all this, I'll update the requirements doc to reflect it later 
today, if no-one objects.


>For work area 2, I (Nick) personally do not like the term "profile" as to me
>this implies something targetted at interworking for an application.

Juan Carlos has suggested the term "signature extensions" instead of 
"signature profiles".  Is that your preferred alternative too?



>What about support for time-stamping?  Is this another activity under work
>area 2?

In doc 1 we could describe the time-stamp element, and in doc 2 we'd 
describe how this element is incorporated into, say, an XAdES signature.  I 
guess doc 2 would also describe the bindings/profiling of the 
request/response protocol to create a timestamp protocol.  Does that sound 
reasonable?

Trevor