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

RE: requirements review/plan

From: Mike Just <Mike.Just@entrust.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:51:22 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4F653B0A375841AC75A8D17712B9C90257A851@sottmxs04.entrust.com>
To: "'Krishna Sankar'" <ksankar@cisco.com>
Cc: "Frederick Hirsch (E-mail)" <hirsch@zolera.com>, "'www-xkms@w3.org'" <www-xkms@w3.org>
Hi Krishna,

Can you please clarify some of your comments below?

-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:43 AM
To: www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: RE: requirements review/plan


Hi,

	Some minor points.

1)	2.1 ... Every client must support *at least* one of *these*
mechanisms.

---
[MJ] I don't understand which item you're referring to.
---

2)	Add : 13. The specification shall explicitly state the visibility
requirements (of elements), if any, for cases like encryption.

---
[MJ] I don't understand what you mean by "visibility requirements". Can you
elaborate?
---

3)	It would be better to define "assertion" in the context of this
requirement set. For example 3.3. talks about assertions, while 2.7 says
some assertions are out of scope. It would be precise if we could add a
requirement in Section 3.1 The specification shall define ... assertion, ...
assertion, ...

---
[MJ] I see the reference to "Assertion" in 3.3.3, but am not sure what you
mean by "2.7". Are you looking at the latest version at
http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms-req.html?
Having said this, there was also some confusion regarding the concept of an
"assertion" at the December F2F. I think we actually tried to remove most
references to Assertions.  Do you have specific requirements text that you
can suggest we add?
---

Cheers
Mike
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 10:40:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:15 GMT