W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [widgets] Getting synch'ed up on Widgets Digital Signatures

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:53:27 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Mark Priestley <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, ext Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CF03BA67-7E9B-47BA-86F9-55652F8E36D7@nokia.com>
To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

we need explicit schema support (in Signature 1.1) for explicit OCSP  
responses, for the latter  a processing rule in widgets signature may  
be enough. Perhaps this does not need to be required must in the  
widgets spec, depends on requirements.

Mark, I believe you mentioned you have additional thoughts on these  
requirements.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:49 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 4 Feb 2009, at 21:45, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> * Is supporting OCSP and CRL a MUST for v1?
>
> Just for clarity, there are two possible requirements around OCSP and
> CRLs:
>
>  - support embedding an OCSP response (or a CRL, or a link to a CRL)
> in the mark-up of signatures
>  - support querying OCSP responders (and CRLs) as part of certificate
> validation
>
> I'd argue that the latter is more important than the former.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:54:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT