W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2001

Fwd: Comments on XKMS

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (W3C) <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:09:46 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-archive@w3.org

Forwarded Text ----
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:09:01 -0500
>To: xml-trust@groups.yahoo.com
>From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@mit.edu>
>Subject: Comments on XKMS
>Cc: www-archive@w3.org
>3.3.3 <KeyUsage>
>Why not use URIs so this can be extensible and externally specified? (Right 
>now can never extend beyond the stated meaning of signature, encryption, or 
>3.3.8 Respnse Message
>Similar question, are the ResultCodes extensible?
>3.3.9 Faults
>I do not yet understand the nuances of "expressing this protocol in SOAP" 
>versus "XKMS is SOAP application." One possible ramification is that by 
>relying upon the SOAP faultcode in this instance, would this also render 
>any other modules/messages as a fault within the same SOAP envelop?
>Why is Signature optional within the KeyBindingAuth and ProofOfPosession 
>elements? If those parent elements exist, what else would be included? 
>(This applies to some of the other structures in section 6).
>A.2 RSA Private Key DATa
>You could use the Modulus and Exponenet from the dsig structures.
End Forwarded Text ----

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 17:09:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:00 UTC