Re: [dss] Asynchronous Profile (request for comments)

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 05:59 PM 4/27/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Trevor !
>
>>A hybrid approach would be to add a new PendingRequest, but continue to 
>>use SignResponse (instead of adding PendingResponse).
>>
>>This is how XKMS does it, and means you only have to add 1 new 
>>message.  Also, this may be a little easier for clients to support.
>
>Yes, this makes it a lot more easier ! I missed that there are no other 
>mandatory elements than <Result>. And the same is true for VerifyResponse.

Right, since they need to be able to report errors anyway.


>What do you think about defining relevant protocol (the two 'Pending 
>Requests' ) parts in a profile ?

Seems good to me (though you can probably just use <PendingRequest>, you 
don't need separate <PendingSignRequest> and 
<PendingVerifyRequest>.  That's also how XKMS does it).

If the choice is between stretching the definition of a profile (in this 
case adding new protocols), or loosening the core to accomodate every 
possible profile, I'd go with the former.


>What's the final result of your CMS-Verify-discussion ? If the elemnts 
><SignatureObject> and <InputDocuments> turned out to be optional too, we 
>don't need to define a <PendingVerifyRequest> anyway.

Ed and I and the chairs have taken the discussion off-list to cut the 
noise-level.  Once we jointly agree on what the issues are, we'll come back 
and try to get the TC's opinion.


Trevor