RE: Stability of Widget DigSig

[Andrew Twigger]

Art,

I expect that removing the statement from the namespace document
will resolve the concerns of ATSC and CEA members.

Thank-you for your quick response to this request.

Andrew Twigger

-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 08 May 2015 13:55
To: Andrew Twigger
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Frederick Hirsch; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

Andrew - seeing no objections from the group to removing the 
"Implementers ..." statement from [NS] document, if that statement is 
removed, does that address your concern?

-Thanks, ArtB

[NS] <http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/>

On 5/8/15 7:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [ + Marcos and Frederick ]
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> The group stopped working on XML Digital Signature for Widgets several 
> years ago and there is no plan to resume work (except to process 
> errata as required).
>
> Marcos, Frederick - this spec's namespace document includes the 
> following statement:
>
> [[
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/>
>
> Implementers should be aware that this document is not stable.
> ]]
>
> Any objections from you or anyone else to remove this statement?
>
> -Thanks, ArtB
>
> On 5/7/15 5:55 AM, Andrew Twigger wrote:
>>
>> ATSC and CEA are developing standards that include the ability to 
>> download digital signed applications. Their current specifications 
>> reference the W3C Recommendation for XML Digital Signature for 
>> Widgets (18 April 2013).  However, the associated Widgets Digital 
>> Signature Namespace (http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/) contains a 
>> statement that "Implementers should be aware that this document is 
>> not stable." which has raised questions as to the stability and 
>> suitability of referencing Widget DigSig.  The alternative would be 
>> to reference XAdES with the C and T forms to allow for the inclusion 
>> of timestamp and certificate revocation information which are not 
>> included in Widget DigSig.
>>
>> I would be pleased to receive any information regarding the stability 
>> of Widget DigSig and whether referencing XAdES would provide a better 
>> alternative.
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>> Andrew Twigger
>>
>

Stability of Widget DigSig

[Andrew Twigger]

ATSC and CEA are developing standards that include the ability to download
digital signed applications.  Their current specifications reference the W3C
Recommendation for XML Digital Signature for Widgets (18 April 2013).
However, the associated Widgets Digital Signature Namespace
(http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig/) contains a statement that
"Implementers should be aware that this document is not stable." which has
raised questions as to the stability and suitability of referencing Widget
DigSig.  The alternative would be to reference XAdES with the C and T forms
to allow for the inclusion of timestamp and certificate revocation
information which are not included in Widget DigSig.

I would be pleased to receive any information regarding the stability of
Widget DigSig and whether referencing XAdES would provide a better
alternative.

Thank-you,

Andrew Twigger