- From: Phillip M Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:00:49 -0500
- To: <rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us>, <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
If we > need to access or validate a particular PDF, we can use the > signature in the XML > document, otherwise it is just part of the identifying information. I am still unclear as to the issue here. Either we have a manifest that breaks down the huge document into components or we have one huge blob. Case A) We have a Manifest. We can validate any component in the manifest that is available to us. This is already supported. Case B)We have a huge chunk of data signed as a single unit. We might as well store the signature with the BLOB in the archive. The signature is of zero utility without the accompanying data. Clearly a document management system should be able to track two related documents (the BLOB and its signature) in the archive. I still don't see how that this creates any new requirements. Document management systems should support meta-data. That is a document management system requirement, not a dig sig requirement. signatures are only one of hundreds of types of Meta-data that the DMS should be able to manage. > >You have to have the content for the signature to tell you anything. > >A digital signature only has meaning if it has been verified. > > Well, sort of. My take is that checking the signature is > optional (see above). If you don't check the signature it tells you nothing. > It's there when you need it. A good example of a detached > signature is a time > stamp system. You send a signature and get it officially time > stamped to, for > example, help prove that you came up with an idea first. The > idea can remain > undisclosed until the "proof" is needed. The timestamp is a signature on a document. To give meaning to the timestamp you need to read that document. That document also happens to be a signature on yet a third document. You are right in pointing out that to give meaning to a timestamp you don't have to derefference the entire chain of authenticated data. All this points to is that signatures have to be first class objects which is already a requirement. > Knowing that a signature "once existed" sounds pretty useless to > me. I don't > buy that this is the best that can be done. Actually this is what your timestamp is. Phill
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 14:00:16 UTC