At 03:23 PM 5/16/2003 +0100, Nick Pope wrote:
>Trevor,
>
>I believe we agree on the organisation of the work. Maybe the terms used
>could better:
>
>Work area 1 is:
> - request / response protocol
> - "core" elements of a signature which are additions to those already
>specified:
> * XML Time-stamp and time-mark elements
> * XML requestor identity elements
>
>Work Area 2 is bringing together signature elements and request / response
>for a certain "class" of DSS service. This will include classes of service
>based on:
> - XAdES
> - CMS
> - XMLDSIG
I agree with all this, I'll update the requirements doc to reflect it later
today, if no-one objects.
>For work area 2, I (Nick) personally do not like the term "profile" as to me
>this implies something targetted at interworking for an application.
Juan Carlos has suggested the term "signature extensions" instead of
"signature profiles". Is that your preferred alternative too?
>What about support for time-stamping? Is this another activity under work
>area 2?
In doc 1 we could describe the time-stamp element, and in doc 2 we'd
describe how this element is incorporated into, say, an XAdES signature. I
guess doc 2 would also describe the bindings/profiling of the
request/response protocol to create a timestamp protocol. Does that sound
reasonable?
Trevor
