RE: [dss] plans for next draft

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 04:55 PM 11/19/2003 +0000, Nick Pope wrote:

>Trevor,
>
>I agree - this allows time-stamps to be created and verified as any other
>object.
>
>To be realy tidy should the description of <dss:timestamp> being within
><dss:signature> be part of that profile as a timestamp isn't just a normal
>signature and should be linked to a specific request option.

Right now there's no request option for saying what type of signature to 
return (XML signature, PGP signature, CMS signature, stored-digest 
signature, XML Timestamp, RFC 3161 Timestamp, etc...).

Do you think we need an option for that?  Or can we assume this is implicit 
in the ServiceProfile / ServicePolicy?


>   This could be
>used as the model for other "signature like" objects such as the court
>filing digest info.

Right now <dss:Signature> contains a choice of:
  - <ds:Signature>
  - <dss:Base64Signature> (for CMS or PGP signatures).
  - extensible to other

We'll need specific profiles for these things, just like we'll need 
specific profiles for <dss:Timestamp>s.

So it seems consistent, if we're going to define <dss:Timestamp> in the 
core spec, to also include it inside the <dss:Signature> choice.  This 
makes it clear, in core, that the way you handle time-stamps is by treating 
them as signatures.

That's my vote, what do you think?


Trevor