RE: [dss] Validation semantics of time-stamping

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

Would then your suggestion be "just drop it and avoid any potential problem"?

Juan Carlos.
At 12:21 29/07/2004 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>I agree with ed it does not follow the basic semanics of verify.
>
>Nick 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juan Carlos Cruellas Ibarz [mailto:cruellas@ac.upc.es]
>> Sent: 29 July 2004 12:11
>> To: Nick Pope; John Ross; 'OASIS DSS TC'
>> Subject: RE: [dss] Validation semantics of time-stamping
>> 
>> 
>> Nick,
>> 
>> >Thinking further is my requirement best met througha signature policy
>> >identifier that applies well defined rules that includes archive 
>> time-stamps
>> >only being applied if the signature is valid?
>> >
>> >Nick
>> 
>> Yes, it is, but I still would like to know your opinion on leaving the
>> UpdateWithoutVerify
>> option even with what you propose. Have you read Ed's message? 
>> 
>> Juan Carlos.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 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_wor
>> kgroup.php.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>