ISSUE#4: SIGNATUREOPTIONS (SIGN REQUEST DISCUSSION)

[Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.es>]

ISSUE#3: SignatureOptions

Short description: You define the SignatureOptions element as a root child
element.
And you have suppressed the canonicalizationMethod element that was present
in my proposal.



My comments: 
	
	1.I generaly prefer to stick to the initial design in the f2f meeting, ie,
	to have an Options root child element and then to include there 
	all the different types of options we may need. So I propose to
	put this element as child of an Options root child element.

	2. You propose to include within SignatureOptions the indication
	of what properties (and optionally their values) the requester can
	instruct the server to use. I have to think about. I guess that I
	could live with that....

	3. I propose to add again the CanonicalizationMethod  and SignatureMethod
(both
	of them could be optional just for dealing with the 
	case of a profile already definining them). Justification: the requester
may be
	interested by any reason to instruct the server which canonicalization
algorithm
	it has to use and what signing algorithms to use...And in the simplest
case, they
	will not appear...




Regards

Juan Carlos.