- From: <dee3@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:39:04 -0400
- To: "'XML-sig group'" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
There are a number of suggestions for labeling signature meaning and a suggestion of a separate WG to do this. As long as there is a place for attributes in the signature, you can always put such labels there. Along these lines, there was the argument at the workshop about whether to allow attributes in the signature element. IE, can you have attributes and possibly multiple resource pointers and hashes within the signature element or are you restricted to having a single pointer to and hash of an intermediate block that can have attributes and/or multiple resouces. I still can't see why simplifying the signature block like that is worth the additional complexity of having this added intermediate block... Thanks, Donald Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd 17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA dee3@us.ibm.com tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833 home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA dee3@torque.pothole.com tel: 1-914-276-2668 Martin Lee <m.lee@andtech.co.uk> on 04/19/99 11:46:48 AM To: "'XML-sig group'" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org> cc: (bcc: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM) Subject: what does a signature mean ? (standard vocabulary) I missed the subtlety, others will misunderstand too unless its made clear in the specification. Singing a document, or part of a document means different things to different people, from I've seen it, to I believe this to be true, to I legally commit myself to this transaction. I propose that a set of standard vocabulary be suggested, to be included as an attribute to the digital signature. The default being (jn the absence of any other assertion): The keyholder has 'touched' or 'received' the signed data. Then in ascending order of commitment: The keyholder has read the signed data. The keyholder has read and agrees with the signed data. The keyholder believes the signed data to be correct. The keyholder believes the signed data to be correct and to be legally bound by it. The first three should cover creating audit trails of who has received/seen a document. The forth expresses what I wish to say in signing metadata describing documents. The fifth I hope to come close to what the e-commerce people need to assert in thier documents. What do people think? Martin Martin Lee AND Data Ltd. Oxford UK
Received on Monday, 19 April 1999 15:30:10 UTC