RE: FW: FW: [dss] OASIS DSS - SignatureObject on Input

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 10:39 AM 9/17/2004 -0400, Edward Shallow wrote:
>Good stuff Trevor I think we're getting there,

[...]

>   I think our little "transport element" debate is interesting, but my
>larger unaddressed concern is the text across these 4 documents as they
>pertain to timestamping.
>
>   Forget about the mechanics of SignaturePlacement, DocumentWithSignature,
>SignatureObject, (Document, DocumentBaseType, InputDocuments), Poperties (as
>they might apply to timestamps as Gregor suggests), ReturnUpdatedSignature,
>UpdateSignatureOnly, AddTimestamp, DocumentWithTemplate, SignatureForm,
>DocsToBeTimeStamped, GenerateAsCounterSignature, and the list goes on ...
>
>   Can this "text improvement" issue, across all documents, be officially
>addressed as an Action ?

We had talked about sometime producing a "roadmap" or "overview" document 
describing the profiles and how they relate to each other.  I'm not sure it 
makes sense for the Core to talk about which profiles you should use, for 
example.


>*****************
>Now I'd like to get back to the DocumentWithSignature discussion and the
>larger "transport element" issue.
>
>Collapsing DocumentWithSignature "in content but not in name" is simply
>confusing, especially when one is allowed to qualify documents as signatures
>through attributing.

Okay, then why don't we wrap a <Document> within a <DocumentWithSignature> 
output, in the same way we've wrapped a <ds:KeyInfo> within an 
<AdditionalKeyInfo>?  Preserving the <Document> addresses your concern, and 
wrapping it in a special element addresses my concern that we want the 
semantics of the returned element to be clear.


Trevor