W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > December 2002

Comments on 4 Dec draft

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:17:05 -0500
Message-ID: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF901067558@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <www-xkms@w3.org>

Comments on 4 Dec 02 draft

This draft is great and the discussion on represent is much clearer. I 
have a few questions/comments:

1. In section 2.7.1. on MessageAbstractType (line [63])
Would it be useful/clearer to add on the ds:Signature paragraph
that this means the signature Reference should have a value 
corresponding to the MessageAbstractType Id value (ie the instance's id 
value)? In other words "" is not a valid Reference value.

The reason is that if XKMS messages are conveyed in SOAP, a Reference of 
"" would correspond to the SOAP envelope and not the XKMS message as 
intended, hence I suggest clarifying the Reference usage here.

2. [65] should the ds:Signature element be maxOccurs=1? Likewise 
OpaqueClientData?

3. Why is the schema for OpaqueClientData an unbounded sequence of 
OpaqueData elements rather than just a single base64Binary value? Is the 
idea to allow multiple binary blobs? Does this need 
justification/explanation?

Typos:

Fix copyright and registration symbols on line [1]
[21] remember to fix annotation at some point for version
[30] s/Helleman/Hellman/
[51] s/serves/each serve/
[77] s/Speciation/Specification/


regards, Frederick
 
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia Mobile Phones
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 08:18:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:18 GMT