[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3030?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Brauer updated OFFICE-3030:
-----------------------------------
Resolution:
There are 3 issues at question here:
1) Why don't we use the XMLDSig 1.1 spec instead of 1.0?
1.1 is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
Also, 1.1 is a breaking change to 1.0 - a 1.1 parser won't parse a 1.1 signature, and there are 1.0 elements that are no longer considered valid. When 1.1 moves out of draft, it would be a substantial change.
2) Why don't we use XML signature properties?
XML signature properties is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
In addition, there is no need for anything but the signing time, and that's covered by XAdES already. There's also nothing preventing an implementer from using these extensions if they liked - it wouldn't break an existing parser.
3) Why not use the RELAX NG schemas?
The RNG schemas are in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
All 3 suggestion may be reconsidered for a future ODF version when the mentioned specifications have been approved.
was:
There are 3 issues at question here:
1) Why don't we use the XMLDSig 1.1 spec instead of 1.0?
1.1 is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
Also, 1.1 is a breaking change to 1.0 - a 1.1 parser won't parse a 1.1 signature, and there are 1.0 elements that are no longer considered valid. When 1.1 moves out of draft, it would be a substantial change.
2) Why don't we use XML signature properties?
XML signature properties is in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
In addition, there is no need for anything but the signing time, and that's covered by XAdES already. There's also nothing preventing an implementer from using these extensions if they liked - it wouldn't break an existing parser.
3) Why not use the RELAX NG schemas?
The RNG schemas are in draft form, and a published specification shall not depend on a draft.
Dennis: I've copied David's comments (to which I fully agree) and mine to the resolution and set this issue to ODF-Next
> Public Comment: Comments on Digital Signatures in ODF 1.2 Part 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFFICE-3030
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3030
> Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Public Review
> Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
> Reporter: Robert Weir
> Assignee: Dennis Hamilton
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: ODF-Next
>
>
> Copied from office-comment list
> Original author: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <>
> Original date: 10 Jul 2010 12:43:50 -0000
> Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201007/msg00001.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
