OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


See below:

>>         -TransformedDocuments: list of integers indicating those
>>         the server should have to return.
>These refer to DocumentSelectors
>>         -UntransformedDocuments: list of integers indicating which of the 
>> input
>>         would have to be returned untransformed.
>These refer to InputDocuments.
Yes, I see.

>>My comments:
>>         1. Again, I contend that all the elements related with options 
>> should go
>>within a root
>>         child element Options as in my proposal.
>>         2. If you accept my proposal made in my message on Issue#2 (see 
>> my proposal
>>         of definition of DocumentManipulations), then we have all the 
>> information
>>on what
>>         the relationship between ds:Siganture and the signed documents in 
>> that
>>         so ReturnDocumentWithSignature and ReturnStandAloneSignature ARE
>>         REQUIRED.
>Suppose you ask it to place a signature within a particular 
>document.  Using OutputOptions, you can ask it just for the 
>StandAloneSignature, just for the DocumentWithSignature, or for both.

<JC>You are saying that t may be the case where the requester may tell the
"generate a signature and envelope within this document in this place, give
me back
the document with the enveloped signature, and by the way, give me also the
ds:Signature in
separated, or that somebody can request the building up of an enveloped
and then request the input document and the signature separatelly. 
Certainly section 3.5.8 seems to answer yes to these questions... I am only
about the usefulness of requesting an enveloped signature and then managing
it as a stand-alone

>>         3. I am not sure that the element UntransformedDocuments should 
>> be there.
>>         I do not see rationale for that. I have
>>         not found such a requirement in the document (although perhaps I am
>>wrong). If it is
>>         not mentioned there, I propose to suppress it.
>It's in 3.5.8.  We decided to add it at the F2F, so that the client could 
>have the server return a document for which the client has only passed in a 
OK, I have found it... Agreed.

Juan Carlos.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]