Last one on my list. :-) First off, it's unclear why, in §2.4, PStr does not include the 'from' attribute if available? I also suspect it should include the 'to' only if given in the stanza, and finally I think your use of "type" should be replaced with "form_type" to avoid confusion with the stanza's type attribute.
Next, typo - Example 6 should presumably have a title of "PLAINTEXT". Overall, I really think that using the FORM_TYPE here is wrong - it means the only forms that can be signed are form signing forms, which seems somewhat introspective. Instead I recommend defining a new signing indicator, perhaps a field SIGNED. It's not *wonderfully* clear in XEP-0068 whether additional generic field names such as this, or the oauth ones, can be registered in such a way, but we can change that to accommodate this. The reason I feel strongly here is because I'd like to be able to potentially sign forms such as MUC configurations, and the current proposal essentially prevents this. I have not reviewed this document in terms of security. On 13 May 2014 13:58, Peter Waher <peter.wa...@clayster.com> wrote: > Hello > > > > I had forgotten to add an Acknowledgements section to the previous > version. Here, an updated version with acknowledgements. If I’ve forgotten > anybody, please let me know. > > > > Best regards, > > Peter Waher > > > > *From:* Peter Waher > *Sent:* den 9 maj 2014 18:12 > *To:* standards@xmpp.org > *Cc:* XEP Editor (edi...@xmpp.org) > *Subject:* New revised version of proposal: Signing Forms > > > > Hello > > > > Attached is a revised version of the proposed XEP: Signing Forms. > > > > All input from the community and the council has been addressed, mostly > minor: > > > > · Removed links to articles expression opinions. > > · Reformulated the reference to SASL in the introduction. > > · A reference to Unicode Standard Annex #15, Unicode > Normalization Forms, and NFC normalization has been added. > > > > Please add this to the inbox. > > > > Best regards, > > Peter Waher > > > > >
