[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Finalizing core spec
AdditionalProfiles as an OptionalInput is fine by me. Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:trevp@trevp.net] > Sent: 14 April 2004 19:52 > To: Nick Pope; dss@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [dss] Finalizing core spec > > > At 09:45 AM 4/14/2004 +0100, Nick Pope wrote: > >[...] > >This is a useful way of signalling the addition of horizontal functions. > >For example, code signing with policy wise, or code signing with > asynch, or > >code signing with asynch and policy wise. Clearly there will be some > >combinations that do not make sense. However, if someone wanted to do > >something I think is stupid then I have no problem allowing him > to do it (it > >may even turn out to be not so stupid). When defining a concrete profile > >the other profiles that make sense to be used in combination can be > >identified. If it is not an "approved" combination then the > "caveat emptor" > >rule can apply. > > > >I suggest that we put in a warning in the Core that the results may be > >unpredictable if there are conflicts between the profiles selected. > > > >It may make more sense to have "Profile" and "AdditionalProfile" > as Elements > >of the SignedRequest rather than attributes. > > Could we leave the 'Profile' attribute as-is, and add <AdditionalProfile> > to '2.8 Common Optional Inputs'? > > This way, the "main profile" can choose whether it supports additional > profiling? > > > > >BTW I noted an error that 2.8.1 refers to a ServiceProfile > attribute whereas > >3.1 and 4.1 use the attribute Profile. > > Yup. > > > Trevor > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]