- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:38:35 -0400
- To: Daniel Ash <Daniel.Ash@identrus.com>, "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: "'www-xkms@w3.org '" <www-xkms@w3.org>
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 02:11 pm, Daniel Ash wrote: > i would suggest for xkms to say less (nothing) about the format and > meaning of a policy than x509. maintain the ability to bind policy to a > key (for PKIs that don't use certificates). and to add the capability to > bind policy to a transaction (cert or certless PKIs). identifiers only. I agree. Presently it is ambigous as to what the meaning of a validation means, and if there is an identifier associated with the transaction it is no longer ambigous -- even if the definition itself is out of scope.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 14:38:37 UTC