[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?

• To: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Subject: RE: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• From: "Mark Seaborne" <MSeaborne@o...>
• Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:29:35 -0000
• Cc: "Michael Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcOeI/1a5eHu6G2GTw+fa6fEdzhMHQAAnUgw
• Thread-topic: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?

This is the kind of scenario that John has outlined on the XForms list, and for which both InfoPath and XForms appear to be lacking at present.

I would be interested to know what this organisation had in mind when using the terms "presentation", "content" and "context".

All the best

Mark

The information in this email is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged.  Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Origo Services Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or the contents. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...]
> Sent: 29 October 2003 13:52
> To: Mark Seaborne
> Cc: Michael Champion; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
> 
> 
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Federal CIO Council conducted an "E-Forms
> for E-Gov" pilot in which I participated (PureEdge did as 
> well). One of
> the points that was brought out in Section 6.7 (Archival 
> Records Domain)
> of the final report [1] was the importance of binding together
> presentation, content, and context:
> 
> <Quote>
> Briefly, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
> guidlines require that the "presentation", "content", and 
> "context" must
> be bound together in such a way that they can be demonstrated 
> to belong
> to the same transaction. This may mean physically combining 
> these into a
> single physical file, or ensuring that they are bound together through
> some other trusted means, such as electronic hashes and signatures. In
> addition, any signature must be applied to this combination of
> presentation, content, and context, and the authentication 
> process must
> ensure integrity.
> 
> For most government applications, E-Forms solutions must be 
> designed and
> selected with these core archival requirements in mind.
> </Quote>
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> 
> [1] http://www.fenestra.com/eforms/deliverables/final_report.htm

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft Hypes Up XUL As The Greatest Expiriment SinceAdam And Eve
• Next by Date: Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• Previous by thread: Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• Next by thread: Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread