Trevor,
I support Gregor's use case is realistic need. There are situations where
the same data is required to be human readbale and machine processible, for
example my tax return which I want to keep a printed copy and also submit it
to the IRS / Inland Revenue for processing. It is easier to prove that the
IRS processed what I saw if the human displayed version and the machine
processed version both are produced from the same raw XML. The style sheet
used also needs to be signed though.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Perrin [mailto:tre...@trevp.net]
Sent: 25 March 2003 19:38
To: Gregor Karlinger; robe...@entrust.com
Cc: ML OASIS DSS
Subject: RE: [dss] Groups - dss-requirements-1.0-draft-02.doc uploaded
At 04:43 PM 3/25/2003 +0100, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
Robert & Trevor,
I would like to make a clarification regarding the use case
"Securing The Transform Chain" I have submitted to the group:
It seems that in the requirements draft there is a mix up of
two different stories:
1. The use case "Securing The Transform Chain" (which has
been the first part of my message "Use cases and
requirements input" sent to the list on Wed, 15 Jan
2003 [1].
2. A collection of requirements regarding digital signature
services in general (which comprise the second part of
that message).
Okay. I think all your general requirements are incorporated
into section
3, in various places. So we should change 2.7 to just mention the
particular aspects of your use case. I have a question about the
use case,
though:
You mention using transforms to make XML data human readable (by
turning it
into HTML, say), and then signing the XML data along with the transforms,
so the relying party can reconstruct exactly what the signer saw when he
was signing.
But then the XML data isn't really signed, so the relying party can't do
anything with the XML itself - the transform might have turned
the XML into
something completely different. So if all this accomplishes is
transmitting signed HTML, why not just send signed HTML in the
first place?
It seems that, if you want the relying party to process XML, the
XML itself
needs to be signed, not a transformed, human-readable version of
it. Presenting the to-be-signed data to the signer in an
agreeable format
is the problem of the signer's application software.
Now if that software wanted to add a signed attribute containing
the HTML,
or some transforms on the XML, to specify "this is what the
signer actually
saw", that might be a good idea, and could be used to resolve disputes
about the signer's intent. Should we modify the use case to
something like
that?
63 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.dssRE: [dss] Groups - dss-requirements-1...
.bin