Re: proposal - retain OCSPResponse element in XML Signature 1.1 without specific interop

On 8/27/12 12:59 PM, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com"
<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>Thus I'd argue we do not need to remove the OCSPResponse element from the
>specification to progress, nor do we need an interop test as it is an
>extension point with a clearly defined XML Element name and namespace. In
>fact, as we've noted on the teleconferences,
> the work of building a test framework would far exceed the value of
>testing the existence of an optional XML element.

I would argue that, if you feel that way (and I do), the same should apply
to everything but KeyInfoReference in the rest of the new cases.

The other KeyInfo constructs are well-defined technically and refer to
other specs for their underlying definitions.

-- Scott

Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 17:04:37 UTC