[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Application Profile
Trevor, Having looked further at the text I now understand what the text in 3.1.2 is saying. So for item c) below the replacement for "A combination of these profiles yeilds an Application Profile" with "A combination of a Protocol Profile, Signature format Profile and Binding Profiles yields an Application Profile which fully describes the service (see 3.10 and 3.11)". Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Pope [mailto:pope@secstan.com] > Sent: 14 August 2003 14:10 > To: Trevor Perrin > Cc: OASIS DSS TC > Subject: [dss] Application Profile > > > Trevor, > > (I am opening this up to the group) > > a) I personally believe that Application Profiles should be able to be > selected through the schema. > > However, the requirements document need not specify how the application > profile is signalled as this is a protocol requirement, on that it can be > indicated either implicetlky or explicetly. So I suggest that > you leave it > open in the requirements document and keep it in the schema for > the moment. > > b) In 3.1.2 Can you update the list of profiles to include the > two mentioned > at the recent DSS phone conference (Corporate Seal and profile for German > signature legislation), preceded by the words. "Profiles are currently > being considered for: ..." > > c) In 3.1.2 I don't follow the text "A combination of these > profiles yeilds > an Application Profile". When is a profile and application profile? Many > of the profiles listed are called "application profiles". > > I suggest that you remove this sentence. > > Nick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net] > > Sent: 13 August 2003 22:22 > > To: Nick Pope; OASIS DSS TC > > Subject: RE: [dss] Agenda for todays DSS > > > > > > At 11:31 AM 8/13/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote: > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > >Trevor, > > > > > >The minutes should follow shortly. > > > > > >On the requirements document there is some words that was to > be added on > > >compound operations which Ed had provided and he will send > again to you. > > > > > >The wording in the requirements document on policy and profiles was > > >acceptable rather than the text included in the minutes of the > > f2f meeting. > > > > Just to clarify - in the Requirements Doc, it treats Application > > Profile as > > an Implicit Parameter. > > > > I had thought we were converging to that opinion on Day 1, but > > then on Day > > 2 we added ApplicationProfile to the schema, and it was in Juan Carlos' > > initial schema. So I left it in the schema I published, under > > SignRequest/ServerGuidance/ApplicationProfile. > > > > So I could either change the Requirements Doc to reflect this, by > > adding a > > new point under 3.5, or I could take this out of the schema. > > What is your > > reading of group consensus on this point? > > > > > >... > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]