[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Validation semantics of time-stamping
Would then your suggestion be "just drop it and avoid any potential problem"? Juan Carlos. At 12:21 29/07/2004 +0100, Nick Pope wrote: >I agree with ed it does not follow the basic semanics of verify. > >Nick > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juan Carlos Cruellas Ibarz [mailto:cruellas@ac.upc.es] >> Sent: 29 July 2004 12:11 >> To: Nick Pope; John Ross; 'OASIS DSS TC' >> Subject: RE: [dss] Validation semantics of time-stamping >> >> >> Nick, >> >> >Thinking further is my requirement best met througha signature policy >> >identifier that applies well defined rules that includes archive >> time-stamps >> >only being applied if the signature is valid? >> > >> >Nick >> >> Yes, it is, but I still would like to know your opinion on leaving the >> UpdateWithoutVerify >> option even with what you propose. Have you read Ed's message? >> >> Juan Carlos. >> > >> > >> > >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >> roster of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_wor >> kgroup.php. >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]