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

RE: More musings, registration

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:00:17 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F405869B35@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'David Cross'" <dcross@microsoft.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, www-xkms@w3.org

I think that what it means is that the authentication blob needs to be an
option rather than a requirement.

It possibly means we should put in some explanatory stuff.

	Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cross [mailto:dcross@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 1:23 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: RE: More musings, registration
> 
> 
> I agree that the two scenarios exist.
> 
> Are you suggesting the second case would only contain the signature on
> the certificate?  Can you extrapolate further on your thoughts?
> 
>  
> David B. Cross
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:11 AM
> To: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: More musings, registration
> 
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that there are intrinsically two types of XKMS
> registration
> 
> 1 Initial registration of a key pair
> 	Alice generates a key pair, registers it, gets back a cert
> perhaps.
> 
> 2 Secondary Registration
> 	Alice submits her previously issued certificate to the XKMS
> service that supports her ISP's Locate directory. 
> 
> 
> It occurs to me that in the second case the request might 
> simply depend
> on the signature in the certificate.
> 
> 		Phill
> 
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 10:58:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:17 GMT