5.1 in LCP looks too normative

[murata2makoto]

This section is informative, but too many details are described in a seemingly normative manner (e.g., the use of <b>REQUIRED</b>. I think that this section should provide an overview rather than details.

[llemeurfr]

Wording to be discussed, but I suppose the ISO TS can be released with this wording.

[murata2makoto]

What's wrong in revising it now?

[llemeurfr]

Nothing wrong. Simply a matter of time since a new draft will be provided for the next SC34 meeting in September.

A very simple modification would be to remove the emphasis on "required", this would protect the informative aspect of the section.
but more importantly, should this section be kept informative? after all, it contains processing instructions to reading systems, it could be made normative.

[thkim2015]

Both suggestions from Laurent are good.

But title, "Introduction" feels like informative.
Indeed all introduction sections in this document are informative.

So I would rather remove the "required" keyword in 5.1.
Actually the explaining contexts in the 5.1 are covered as "normative" in the later sections.

[murata2makoto]

@llemeurfr

In the current schedule, all what JWG7 can do in Fukuoka is to review an informal draft of the DTS. After that, project editors will be instructed to provide DTSs. I think that we should try to improve the current draft.

I also would like to make this introduction obviously non-normative.

[llemeurfr]

@murata2makoto so my question is: can we really consider that the processing model described in this section is informative?

[murata2makoto]

@llemeurfr

I think so. If some requirements are not covered elsewhere, some other clauses should describe them.

[llemeurfr]

It is true that 5.5 Validating the certificate and signature defines the processing model a RS must follow to check the Provider Certificate and the Signature of the license. Therefore the processing model found in the 5.1 introduction is a duplicate, which isn't good.

I'll propose a new wording.

[danielweck]

Related issue and analysis: #38

[llemeurfr]

We'll create a new normative section about the processing model providers are required to follow to create license signatures.