Or two, one for signatures (generation and verification) and the other for time-stamping.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Robert Zuccherato <>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:28:44 -0400
>Nick;
>
>It seems to me that at least for the signature verification and timestamping
>protocols, a number of the submissions, including Entrust's comes fairly
>close. Of course, nothing is going to have all of the requirements exactly,
>but they could be used as good starting points.
>
>I guess the question then is, do we want to have three separate protocols
>(one for signature generation, one for signature verification and one for
>timestamping), or do we want to have one protocol that includes
>functionality to support all three?
>
> Robert.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Pope [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:49 PM
>> To: Trevor Perrin; Juan Carlos Cruellas;
>> Subject: RE: [dss] freezing doc, and next steps
>>
>>
>> I would say that we have to use the requirements document as
>> the starting
>> point. None of these documents match what was in the
>> requirements document.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:]
>> > Sent: 22 May 2003 18:51
>> > To: Juan Carlos Cruellas;
>> > Subject: [dss] freezing doc, and next steps
>> >
>> >
>> > At 04:30 PM 5/20/2003 +0200, Juan Carlos Cruellas wrote:
>> >
>> > >Dear all,
>> > >
>> > >As version 6 of the document on requirements has been
>> issued I think that
>> > >we could try to raise comments as soon as we have had time to
>> > read it in order
>> > >to have an idea of how far we are of freezing it . This
>> would allow to
>> > >elaborate a more suitable agenda for the next meeting.
>> >
>> > I'd be happy with freezing it soon. Not that it's perfect,
>> but I think
>> > it's helped clarify things enough that we're ready to get into
>> > detailed work.
>> >
>> > Robert raised good questions about what the next steps should be.
>> > Maybe we
>> > should discuss these on-list, and try to make some
>> decisions at the next
>> > meeting:
>> > - should we use a submission as a starting point?
>> > - should we start with a face-to-face meeting?
>> >
>> > Below are the submissions I remember, if this helps:
>> >
>> > Entrust signing, verifying, time-stamping:
>> > <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200211/msg00003.html>htt
>> p://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200211/msg00003.<http://
>lists.oasis-op
>> en.org/archives/dss/200211/msg00003.html>html
>>
>> ISSE time-stamping:
>> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200212/msg00004.html
>> >http://lists.
>>
>> oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200212/msg00004.<http://lists.oasi
>> s-open.org/arc
>> hives/dss/200212/msg00004.html>html
>>
>> EML time-stamping:
>> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200212/msg00012.html
>> >http://lists.
>>
>> oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200212/msg00012.<http://lists.oasi
>> s-open.org/arc
>> hives/dss/200212/msg00012.html>html
>>
>> Karel Wouters time-stamping:
>> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200301/msg00001.html
>> >http<http://l
>> ists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200301/msg00001.html>://lists
>> .oasis-open.or
>> g/archives/dss/200301/msg00001.html
>>
>> Electronic
>> PostMark:http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200302/msg00016.html
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200304/msg00076.html
>> (more recent)
>>
>> XAdES:
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dss/200302/msg00028.html
>>
>>
>> Trevor
>>
>>
>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave
>> _workgroup.php
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>
