W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Draft working group thingie

From: Daniel J. Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:24:41 -0400
Message-ID: <01a701c11b80$659aeb60$b07ba8c0@bayt>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
Phillip & others,

Thanks for moving this along.

One question below...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: Draft working group thingie


>
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
> pbaker@verisign.com
> 781 245 6996 x227
>
> > My main question is deliverables.
> >
> > I'd like a WG or two do to the following:
> > 1. KISS - XML (namespace/schema) cleanup and extensibility.
> > 2. KRSS - general cleanup.
>
> I would add in X-BULK on the grounds that it is
> (1) not a great deal of work
> (2) has a significant user base

I'd like to hear a bit more about who the user base is and how they will be
represented in the WG. Ideally, it would be nice to hear from the user
organizations themselves.

> (3) would exercise the extensability of KISS
>
>
> > This seems to be calling for two other documents:
> > 3. The cryptographic enhancement of XML Protocol Messages
> > 4. Description of cryptographic enhancements in a Web Service
> > Description.
>
>
> 3 would be the signing and encryption of SOAP messages. 4 is simply the
> observation that to be useful WSDL must allow interfaces to declare
'encrypt
> this stuff, sign this stuff) etc.
>
> I think that these are not work items for Working Group 1, they would be
> suitable work items for a Working Group 2 formed after Working Group 1 has
> largely completed work.
>
> The one piece that would require some prior thought is the specific
instance
> of signing XKMS messages. This need not require the problem to be
addressed
> in the large. It would be preferrable however that Working Group 1 would
> design something that would be useful later on to working group 2.
>
> Phill
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 14:23:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:38 EDT