OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [dss] Updated nested renewed timestamps


A few specific comments:

1) 3.1.1

Server Support for <RenewTimestamp> is optional.  So:

The timestamping specific optional input <RenewTimestamp> MAY also supported
and may be sent by the client.

2) 3.2.3

I would use the same word "supported". So:
"and the server is able to process it" ->
  "and it is supported by the server"

Also, I would start the sentence "A server that does not support the
<RenewTimestamp> optional input must reject the sign request with a
<ResultMajor> code of RequesterError and a <ResultMinor> code of
NotSupported." on a new paragraph.

3) The definition of Timestamp Token in the Core spec 5.1.1 needs updating
to allow several objects to be in <ds:reference>.

Also, the proposed text for 3.2.3 could be made clearer by adding to the
middle of the sentence as indicated in CAPITALS "An additional
<ds:SignedInfo>/<ds:Reference> REFERENCING THE
<DS:OBEJCT>/<DSS:PREVIOUSTIMESTAMP> must be included in the signature of the
new timestamp signature"

4) 4.1.2 This is only true if <PreviousTimestamp> is supported by the
server.  Also this is written in terms of what the client may do.  This is
described in a very long sentence that is very difficult to understand.  It
is not very clear that T1 is the time in a renewed timestamp and T2 is the
time value in the <PreviousTimestamp>.  Can you have another go at this

5) It is not very clear that this an optional extension to the basic
time-stamping profile.  Particularly with verification, how does th cleint
know whether the server is checking any <PreviousTimestamp>  I suggest that
this would be much clearer if this was defined as a Profile which is defined
in the same document.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri Andivahis [mailto:dimitri@surety.com]
> Sent: 04 April 2005 13:39
> To: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dss] Updated nested renewed timestamps
> > Action 05-03-21-2: Dimitry update optional nested timestamps
> extension to
> > time-stamping profile (revision to action 05-02-28-03)
> Attached is the updated proposal for the nested renewed timestamps
> based on some input from Nick.  Only the contents of sections
> of the timestamping profile affected by the track changes
> have been included in the attached Word document.
> The previous timestamp is now specified in the new XML timestamp
> as an additional <ds:Signature>/<ds:Object> element of the newly
> generated timestamp, that is, as a sibling of
> the <ds:Signature>/<ds:Object> containing the <TSTInfo>
> (as opposed to as a sibling of <TstInfo> within the same
> <ds:Signature>/<ds:Object> in the earlier proposal).
> Thoughts requested on whether this is compatible with the current
> text in Core Section 5.1.1 (XML Timestamp Token).
> Dimitri

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]