RE: [dss] plans for next draft

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net]
Sent: 19 November 2003 20:08
To: Nick Pope; dss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dss] plans for next draft


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?

<np>I would suggest that a profile / policy could imply a set of options.
So a I would say that we have an optional for Timestamp perhaps with
attributes defining the type.</np>

>   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.

<np>I would say that a profile would be more specific that just the basic
form of signature.</np>

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?

OK

Trevor


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
.