OPC revision on top of XAdES 319 132-1 and -2

[MURATA Makoto]

Dear colleagues,

I reported the result of the Seattle meeting to XAdES
experts in Japan.  They are happy to hear that SC34 and
ETSI are likely to work together.  I spoke with Kimura-san
and find that another committee in ETSI become a liaison of
another JTC1 committee recently by submitting a document to
JTC1.  I sent that document to Juan and requested his
committee to submit it to JTC1.

I believe that we should use the upcoming version of XAdES
(319 132-1 [1] and 132-2 [2]) rather than the current
version (101 903) as a basis of our OPC revision.  It uses
a new namespaces for many of the existing elements.  Thus,
data conforming to XAdES 101 903 (such as exisiting
OFF-CRYPTO XAdES) will never conform to XAdES 319 132.

One of the issues in XAdES 101 903 is that the
relationships among conformance levels is very unclear.
XAdES 319 132 is much better than that.  It now makes clear
which conformnace level requires which element in Annexes.

But what should our spec look like?  Here are some questions.

Q1: Shoulld we reference both 319 132-1 and 132-2?  (My two cents: Yes)

Q2: Should we introduce a new value  for Object/@Id?  (My two cents: No)

Q3: Should we introduce a new value for ds:Reference/@Type?  (My two cents:
Yes)

Q4: Should we introduce some additional requirements on XAdES by
    eliminating some options?  (I have no ideas here.)

Regards,
Makoto

[1]
http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-1v009-XAdES-BuildingBlocksAndBaselineSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf
[2]
http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/prEN-319132-2v009-XAdES-ExtendedSignatures-STABLE-DRAFT.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150401/386dc797/attachment.html>