At 01:49 PM 10/26/2003 -0500, Edward Shallow wrote:
>Nick and Co,
>
> The last suggested position I remember getting consensus on was that the
>request for the secondary or ancilliary operation should be expressed in the
>"Options" or "ProcessingOptions" structure as it was then called.
I agree with you when there's clearly a primary operation, and a secondary
one, such as "sign with time-stamp". But in Nick's case, we've gone back
and forth over whether the Verify or the Sign is primary.
> So in your example below, the principle operation is the "Verify". The
>client requestor must express their desire through use of (for example) an
>"AddContentTimeStamp" option or something similar.
That's one way to do it - another way is to have a hybrid <VerifyAndSign>
operation, with a request message similar to <VerifyRequest> (which sends a
signature) and a response message similar to <SignResponse> (which returns
a signature).
I haven't looked into this enough to be able to really defend it, it just
feels "righter" to me that trying to shoe-horn this into either the Signing
or Verifying protocol. How does this grab you?
Trevor
