[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: requirements - signature types limited to those based on XML DSig (3.2.2)
I propose we focus the scope on XML Signatures. I believe when we went through the requirements that the point Merlin made was that we should design the details of the request/response protocol such that we could extend it to non XML Signature types of signature in the future with less effort. I do not think this meant that we should require support for all types of signatures. I suggest we change 3.2.2 to only list XML Signatures and profiled variants like a Timestamp signature since this is our focus. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia Mobile Phones > > >---- > > >3.2.1 > > >I suggest we remove the bullet "Extensible to others" since > > binary and XML > > >pretty much covers it. > > > > I'll do that, unless people disagree. > > > I am loath to claim that the DSS protocol is generic to all signature > syntaxes. We can provide a "Bucket" to carry information > required for other > types of signature but I am not sure how meaning that is. If > this can be > achieved all well and good but at the moment I would prefer > not to change > the requirements that we are commiting to support. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]