Description
At the March 13th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee continued its review of the public comments received on the Distribution Element 2.0. The members discussed the following topics:
1. TOPIC: What support does the DE 2.0 provide for signing versus encryption? (Answer: As noted in the previous minutes, the Distribution Element 2.0 (DE 2.0) supports signing the whole DE 2.0 message explicitly. Signing ensures that nothing in the DE message was changed en route. The DE 2.0 does not provide explicit support for encryption, although payloads can be encrypted externally and then used as content objects inside the DE 2.0 as needed.)
2. TOPIC EMFW-12,11,10,9: What is the intent of enabling linking in the DE 2.0 and what does this imply for determining which DE elements should contain xlink attributes? (Answer: Our intent was to enable linking of objects and linking of independent DE components, namely EDXLDistribution, Descriptor and Content. The xlink attributes should be placed accordingly to enable linking that satisfies this intent. We will relook at the location of the xlink attributes to ensure they support this intent and revisit this issue at our next meeting.)
3. TOPIC EMFW-8: Should we reorder the Descriptor elements? (Answer: No. The suggestion was made in a comment to consider reordering the Descriptor elements. The group reviewed the current order of the elements and did not identify a significant issue or improvement to justify reordering the elements. A motion was passed to leave the order of the Descriptor elements as is because no particular improved order was determined.)
4. TOPIC EMFW-7: Was having the Descriptor element as a wrapper element intentional? (Answer: The Descriptor element contains a sequence of other elements and was intended to be a separate global element to support the use of other wrappers. A motion was passed that no change to the Descriptor element is needed. )
5. TOPIC EMFW-6: Is TargetArea using the latest EDXLGeoLocation schema? (Answer: We may need more clarification on this comment. The schema appear to be current. Martena will request additional clarification from Don.)
6. TOPIC EMFW-5: Should RefDateTimeSent be optional instead of required as part of the DistributionReference? (Answer: We would like additional clarification on this comment. The three elements of the DistributionReference are intended to uniquely identify a reference to a prior message. This would suggest that they are all required, which is currently the case. )
7. TOPIC EMFW-4: Is the following line of the DE 2.0 schema needed: ? (Answer: This line is part of the definition of “AnyXMLType” and appears to be appropriate since it allows any attribute to be included as part of this type. We would like additional clarification on this comment. )
8. TOPIC EMFW-3: How should we resolve double importing of xlink in our different standards? (Answer: The comment suggests removing the xlink import statement from edxl-gsf standard or elsewhere. Double imports are a known problem in general when combining xml schema. Lew will consider an appropriate solution in regard to the GML Simple Features profile (edxl-gsf). )
9. TOPIC EMFW-2: No action needed, this was a test comment.
10. TOPIC EMFW-1: Should we cleanup the specified spacing issues within our specification? (Answer: Yes, the cleanup items referenced in this comment do not impact the substantive content and improve readability of the specification. )
References:
(1) JIRA DE 2.0 Issues List: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=10084
