Signing events

[Steve Allen]

On 2012 Mar 5, at 06:01, Rob Seaman wrote:
> More fundamental yet is how the signed or unsigned VOEvent packets themselves will be used.

> For a comparable situation note that FITS was envisioned as purely an interchange format,
> but has been forced by the requirements of the community into a permanent archival role.


There is a significant difference because the F of FITS is
"flexible".  That allowed individual organizations to experiment
with additional elements in the files without invalidating them.
The desire to validate VOEvent content means that a VOEvent is
only as flexible as the schema, and right now that does not allow
for any experimentation by users.

While XML-DSig is very complex, it does allow a very flexible
ability for one or more signatures of various different components
of the VOEvent.  I think there's a chicken and egg problem in
demanding use cases prior to allowing the XML-DSig as a valid
part of the VOEvent schema.
                                                                                
--
Steve Allen               <sla at ucolick.org>              WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory      Natural Sciences II, Room 165  Lat  +36.99855
University of California  Voice: +1 831 459 3046         Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064      http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/   Hgt +250 m