A little more detail on the background of your question might make a more appropriate answer possible. Is it civil, or military aircraft being considered?
In the civil world, there is an FAA list of light aircraft which are permitted flight with a door removed, which may be presumed to be for paradropping. In the approval work I do, it is strongly discouraged that I refer to a modification as a "parachuting" modifiction, as Transport Canada has conveyed to me that parachuting is an activity, not a modification. Thus, we end up with a lot of "utility" modifications, and the aircraft operator can use the modified aircraft as he pleases, with its flight, and operational authority.
As for the techniques of the actual departure from the aircraft, those are generally established by the jumpers themselves. That said, however, were I permitted to place operational limitations on the aircraft for parachuting use, I would certainly have a few in mind. During my two seasons of flying jumpers in a Cessna 182 and 185, a few alarming things happened. One thing in common with all, was a lack of briefing between the jump master, and the pilot. In particular, I will never forget an occasion when four hearty jumpers exited the aircraft, but purposefully delayed their jump. The result was these four guys trailing off the wing strut. I suspect that Cessna did not consider this configuration when deciding how much aileron and rudder authority should be available - 'cause there is not enough for that at 55 kts! To make matters worse, with a loud "Yahoo", they were gone, (all together), and I was riding an angry 185 tumbling from huge control deflections, and a sudden reduction in assymetric drag!
Considering how informal some jump operations seem to be, the aircraft don't really seem to be too much a problem. I believe, however, that the aircraft to jumper relationship deserves a lot more attention...