At 04:55 PM 11/19/2003 +0000, Nick Pope wrote:
>Trevor,
>
>I agree - this allows time-stamps to be created and verified as any other
>object.
>
>To be realy tidy should the description of <dss:timestamp> being within
><dss:signature> be part of that profile as a timestamp isn't just a normal
>signature and should be linked to a specific request option.
Right now there's no request option for saying what type of signature to
return (XML signature, PGP signature, CMS signature, stored-digest
signature, XML Timestamp, RFC 3161 Timestamp, etc...).
Do you think we need an option for that? Or can we assume this is implicit
in the ServiceProfile / ServicePolicy?
> This could be
>used as the model for other "signature like" objects such as the court
>filing digest info.
Right now <dss:Signature> contains a choice of:
- <ds:Signature>
- <dss:Base64Signature> (for CMS or PGP signatures).
- extensible to other
We'll need specific profiles for these things, just like we'll need
specific profiles for <dss:Timestamp>s.
So it seems consistent, if we're going to define <dss:Timestamp> in the
core spec, to also include it inside the <dss:Signature> choice. This
makes it clear, in core, that the way you handle time-stamps is by treating
them as signatures.
That's my vote, what do you think?
Trevor
