Re: Feedback on requirements

At 04:00 PM 7/28/99 -0400, Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III wrote:
 >I would be willing to write/edit such a definition section.  I suspect that
 >I would need help from the list (references and input) on some of the very
 >technical definitions, but I'm willing to do the compilation, writing,
 >editing if I'm pointed to the resources (or if definitional decisions are
 >made on the list).
 
Thanks Todd, but the work I am speaking of consists of good references (like
I did in [1]), and writing technically precise definitions. I wouldn't even
mind seeing them expressed in an informal predicate logic [2] -- as
reflected in the latest RD [4] -- or BNF [3] as approriate. 

Perhaps someone will volunteer to work with you since I'm sure with a legal
background, you'd be precise with the words. <smile>

[1]http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-dsig-design-resources-990723.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-dsig-design-resources-990723.html
[3] http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/download/artikler/bnf.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-requirements-990728.html
     (Yanked from a conversation from TimBL, RalphS, and DanC yesterday)

   A more formal definition of a signed resource is that the following
   evaluates as true "definition(inputs):constraints" where R is a
   resource., I is a resource identifier (URI), and C is content
   (sequence-of-octects).

   signed-resource(I, C, key, sig): there was some request R such that
   GET(R) = C and address(R) = I and sign-doc(C, key, sig)

   sign-doc(C, key, sig): sig is the value of a strong one-way
   function over content and key that yields C integrity/validity and K
   non-repudiability
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 1999 17:19:48 UTC