Re: [dss] "Required" Designation on SignatureObject within VerifyRequest

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 09:16 AM 4/14/2004 -0400, Edward Shallow wrote:
>All,
>
>     To make things easier on clients when creating a VerifyRequest, would it
>be possible to relax the [Required] designation on the SignatureObject for
>the simplest of scenarios where there is only one InputDocument and the
>signature is contained therein. There would be no WhichDocument ambiguity
>and the client would be relieved of having to construct the SignaturePtr
>element.

This shifts a burden to the server though - the server has to know where 
the signature is located inside the input document, or he has to search for 
it.

This would simplify things a bit in the case where:
  - there's 1 input document
  - with 1 enveloped signature
  - and the server knows where the signature will be found.

Still, I don't think it's worth complexifying things by treating it as a 
special case.

Requiring the client to construct a <SignaturePtr>, as we do now, doesn't 
seem that painful.


>  This would be sort of like the DocumentWithSignature type presently
>used as OptionalOutput. In fact, could DocumentWithSignature itself not be
>used as input on a VerifyRequest if both SignatureObject and InputDocuments
>were made optional ? This would be more semantically correct for this
>scenario which I contend would be the most common. Thoughts ?

I have the same objection - this might be more apt for this particular 
case, but adding special-cases like this complicates the protocol as a whole.


>      Section 5.1.2 line 1121 of the core spec Draft 18 has a typo ...
>Ptarroduced ...

Got it, thanks.

Trevor