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

Re: XKMS 2.0 base working draft

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:51:45 +0000
Message-ID: <3BFCD8C1.FD398F7@baltimore.ie>
To: www-xkms-ws@w3c.org

Ok. As as result of this thread are we then ok with the
requirements document containing words to the effect of:

1 XKMS specifications will define how XKMS messages and
  transactions can be secured
2 message and transaction security will be based ("directly") 
  on xkmdsig and xmlenc
3 XKMS specifications will define how transport layer 
  security can be used to protect connections over
  which XKMS messages/transactions are transported
4 Each specification will define which of the above
  security mechanisms are mandatory-to-implement, optional
  etc.
5 Unless there is a particular reason, all specifications
  will make the same set of choices for 4 above

(And don't beat me up about the words, beat up Mike and
Frederick when they include some words:-)

Stephen.  

Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> > I guess I would tend towards the more self-contained approach - something
> > like specifying use of xmldsig and xmlenc "directly" for xkms where
> > we need message level protection (and perhaps tls/ssl where we don't).
> 
> +1.  SOAP Security is likely to be transport level security. :)
> 
> --
> Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> Encryption)
> http://www.zolera.com

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 05:51:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:41 EDT