RE: [dss] Comments on DSS XAdES profile

[Juan Carlos Cruellas Ibarz <cruellas@ac.upc.es>]

Nick,

Just one comment on your reply:

Juan Carlos.

>> >On the editorial issues
>> >
>> >1. OK as is - I think it is reasonable to always have the form
>> of signature
>> >registered through an identifier
>> >
>> As we have commented sometimes, it may happen that for a specific form
>> there may
>> be different combinations of properties. If we stick with this way of
>> requesting forms, how
>> could we manage these different combinations?. Could we dictate rules like
>> the ones
>> expressed below?:
>>
>> 1. Assign an URI for the form (no matter what combination of properties).
>> If a server receives this
>> UIR, then it generates the combination specified in its policy or other
>> configuration settings.
>>
>> 2. Assign one URI for each combination. If a server receives one of them,
>> then, if it is able to do so,
>> it generates the corresponding combination of properties.
>>
>I suppose that 1. is more flexible  as it allows implementors to use URI and
>request additional as they feel appropriate.  So one further contimplation I
>would go for this.
>
I do not understand very well what you think that the "as they feel
appropiate" 
may be supported...

Are you saying this? 

If there is a form FX with up to three different combinations of properties
(A, B and C). 
If the FX form has an URI assigned. 
If the requester desires combination A.
If there is no an URI for each of the combinations.
Then the request contains the URI and we leave to concrete subprofiles to
define 
how the requester may explicitly request combination A from form FX.