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

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

Agree with approach to time-stamping.

I can't say that I like signature extensions any better than profile.
Signature class?

Anyway, I'll not waste more of your time on terms and let you go ahead with
a revised version using what you feel the DSS group will find most
acceptable.

I would suggest that, whilst we can start on 1 first, we do not finish off
doc 1 until the second one is well down the line.

Nick



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
> Sent: 16 May 2003 17:09
> To: Nick Pope; Juan Carlos Cruellas; dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dss] Further - Request for inclussion to the
> requirementsdocument
>
>
> 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
>
>
>