quick interjection about terminology -
At 01:46 PM 9/17/2003 -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
>>I am not sure what you mean by "standards profile" as apposed to application
>>profile and how this relates to use of extensions
>
>I mean things like the way WS-I says "only use doc/literal not rpc/encoded
>for SOAP." Or the way IETF PKIX says how to use X.509. It's where one
>document defines a "subset" (not strictly in the PKIX case, perhaps) of
>another. That's a standards profile.
>
>An application profile would be a URI embedded in each request that
>indicates to the DSS server what behavior(s) the client wants. For
>example, "urn:tpu.int:timestamp:1.0" could be the URI that clients send if
>they want a postal-service timestamp.
I think your "standards profile" and our "application profile" are the
same? 3.1.2 of the requirements doc:
"The TC will develop Bindings for carrying the request/response protocols
over different transport and security layers. The TC will also develop
Profiles which constrain and extend the Protocols, the Signature Formats
they operate on, and their Bindings, to target particular environments. A
combination of a Protocol Profile, Signature Profile, and Bindings Profile
yields an Application Profile, which will be a fully described service."
or 3.11:
"The request/response protocols, signature formats, and bindings, can all
be profiled. A profile can limit optionality, instantiate abstractions,
add new elements into extensibility points, and add processing rules.
A combination of these profiles is an Application Profile that can be used
to address a particular use case. DSS server or client implementations
will be compliant with particular application profiles of DSS, not with DSS
itself."
Trevor
