-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Isolated conformance requirements in specification, versus "validation" algorithm to ensure LCP compliance in reading system implementations #38
Comments
Context: LCP-compliant applications ship with Readium2 implementation:
Side note about CRL: for optimum User eXperience, there should be a caching/update mechanism to ensure the CRL is refreshed regularly from its Distribution Point URL, without causing UX delays due to HTTP latency and network timeouts. Readium1 implementation: Code path: https://github.com/readium/readium-lcp-client/blob/e4c02fdd396157062b80dcd6b787a2c6a72a0da0/src/lcp-client-lib/LcpService.cpp#L138
Recap/repeat of Readium2 implementation (to compare with above):
|
Related issue: #25 |
Example:
https://github.com/readium/lcp-specs/blob/master/releases/lcp/latest.md#55-validating-the-certificate-and-signature
(this is just a particular example, in the specification there are other disconnected / isolated fragments of conformance definitions)
...versus an "algorithm" (written in prose) for reading system implementors, such as:
https://github.com/readium/architecture/tree/master/other/lcp#6-validate-the-license-integrity
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: