Comments on Latest OPC draft -- Clause 12 (Digital signatures)

[caroline arms]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM, caroline arms <caroline.arms at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I started my review of the draft with Clause 12 -- as the most recent
> changes.
>
> I hope these help.  Caroline
>
> General comments:
>
> Referring to W3C Recommendation “XML-Signature Syntax and Processing”.
> Most frequently it is referred to as "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing"
> but in some places, perhaps only in 12.8 and 12.9, it is referred to as " the
> W3C recommendation."  We should probably be consistent.
>
> I think it would be helpful to refer to the Relationships namespace and
> associated schema for all OPC-specific elements somewhere early on, perhaps
> in 12.2 (although maybe it needs to be in normative text).
>
> I also think it would be useful to have a reference to §8.5.5.3 (currently
> titled Relationships Part around Digital Signature) in §12.4 or earlier --
> §12.4 mentions the relationships associated with digital signatures but
> doesn't say anything about them.
>
> Aside: I suggest changing the title for §8.5.5.3 to Relationships Parts
> related to Digital Signature Markup.  Notice the suggestion that Part be
> made plural -- because there are two Relationships Parts associated with
> any digital signature (see diagrams).
>
> Specific comments:
>
> 12.3
> "to sign" should be "to be signed"
>
> 12.5.3
> 2nd sentence.  I would change "the OPC-specific" to "an OPC-specific"
>
> 12.5.7
> last sentence in first para should be two sentences.  Break before first
> "its"
> " This element is OPC-specific, its namespace is shown in Annex E, and
> its schema definition is in Annex C.4. "
> to
> "This element is OPC-specific. Its namespace is shown in Annex E, and its
> schema definition is in Annex C.4."
>
> 12.5.8
> as for 12.5.7
>
> 12.6
> Step 2.4)
> remove comma pair surrounding "either have an Id value that matches a
> SourceId value"
> I'm not sure that putting "or" in italics is consistent with our document
> style.
> I would add "have" after "or"
>
>
> 12.7
> The added text explaining the example is welcome.
>
> First or second sentence.  I think the use of the pds: prefix in the
> example could usefully be mentioned up front somewhere, without requiring
> digging into the long example.
>
> Last sentence of the narrative before the actual example
> Should Signature be SignatureValue here
>
> 12.8 and 12.9
> These are the sections that refer to    W3C Recommendation “XML-Signature
> Syntax and Processing”     differently from references in earlier
> subclauses.
>
> "as per" does not strike me as consistent with usual style in
> specifications, particularly at the beginning of a sentence.  In the
> instances here, I would use "following the steps in" or "Follow the steps
> in" depending on position in sentence.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20180404/56b3bcbb/attachment-0001.html>