Re: [dss] Finalizing core spec

[Andreas Kuehne <kuehne@klup.de>]

Hi Nick, Trevor ..

[...]

>>However, the tentative consensus is in favor of this (you and
>>Andreas).  I'd like to see a concrete proposal - right now the
>>'Profile' is
>>indicated as an attribute, perhaps we would add an "AdditionalProfile"
>>optional input that could occur multiple times?  What happens if
>>requirements conflict?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>This is a useful way of signalling the addition of horizontal functions.
>For example, code signing with policy wise, or code signing with asynch, or
>code signing with asynch and policy wise.  Clearly there will be some
>combinations that do not make sense.  However, if someone wanted to do
>something I think is stupid then I have no problem allowing him to do it (it
>may even turn out to be not so stupid).  When defining a concrete profile
>the other profiles that make sense to be used in combination can be
>identified.  If it is not an "approved" combination then the "caveat emptor"
>rule can apply.
>
>  
>
I especially agree with the unexpected turn outs !
Real implementations will support only a subset of profiles. They will 
know what to do in case of a request for an unexpected profile.

>I suggest that we put in a warning in the Core that the results may be
>unpredictable if there are conflicts between the profiles selected.
>
>  
>
We also should add 'Don't use this spec to dry your poodle !'  ;-)

>It may make more sense to have "Profile" and "AdditionalProfile" as Elements
>of the SignedRequest rather than attributes.
>  
>
Of course !


Greetings

Andreas