RE: [dss] status of core

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 04:39 PM 9/30/2004 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Trevor
>
>This is a useful set of proposals, thanks to you Ed, and Gregor.  If we can
>agree on these changes and close of the outstanding issues by the end of the
>next conf call then I should think that we would be in a position to produce
>a further DSS working draft.
>
>Can I ask for clarification on the first functional change:
>" 1) Lines 278-282, 370-376, 937-943: Replace use of transmitted DTDs with
>XML Schema.  Probably doesn't need to be base64 encoded any more."
>
>Can the XML schema be the subset of the document schema needed to identify
>the ID attributes?  If so can a few words be added to claify this.

Yes, agreed.



>Why was the base64 encoding applied to the DTD?  Was this to hid the non-XML
>syntax?

Yes.


>   If so then I agree this is not needed, although keeping it in
>Base64 may possibly help handling this as one information object.

I'm not sure, either - but I'm leaning towards no base64.


>Regarding Outstanding Issues and following on from the discuss at the conf
>call;
>1) I agree with your suggestion to add clarification that the input document
>may be a [document], signature or manifest to be timestamped / coutersigned.
>
>2)
>- I believe that we concluded that manifest should be prepared by the
>client.
>- If it is easy to define structures to return more information for
><VerifyManifest> this would be useful.

I like it how it is (treat Manifests just like other References).


>- I don't think that adding more complexity to <ReturnedTransormedDocument>
>is necessary at this stage.
>
>3) More specific <ProcessingDetails> would be useful as long as we can
>identify what is required easily.

I'm happy leaving that to profiles too.  In general, I think we should keep 
requirements on core implementors light.  But people are welcome to make 
more concrete proposals.


Trevor