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

RE: 2.0 Draft 8

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:30:53 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F405869B07@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'Krishna Sankar'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Www-Xkms (E-mail)'" <www-xkms@w3.org>

Hi,

	There have been private discussions but none so far on the list. I
think we should schedule some con call time to have this discussion.

	The objective that everyone appears to share is to enable XKMS to be
specified independently of any lower level protocol that it might use. So
that we don't need to keep comming out with new versions of XKMS when all
that has changed is the traqnsport protocol.

	There are a lot of moving parts here, SOAP is currently in mid
definition, the proposal for a security layer is currently waiting to be
formally proposed in a standards body. Neither specification is going to
change the internals of XKMS and even with WS-Security fully specified there
is a utility in the enveloped signatures on the XKMS messages.

	What I propose that we do is to move most of section 2, except for
the schema discussion out of the XKMS document and make it a standalone
'message binding' document. This would have the following outline.

1. Security Requirements
2. Abstract protocol definition
3. SOAP over HTTP binding [normative, required]
4. Direct HTTP binding [normative, not required]
5. SOAP over HTTP with SOAP security layer (e.g. ws-security) 
	binding [not normative, not required]
6. SOAP over SSL binding

	Sections 3-6 will consist largely of a table stating what mechanism
is used to achieve which security requirement. In some cases certain
security bindings will not meet a particular requirement e.g. if you want to
support SOAP routing or non-repudiation then you can't use SSL.

	If this is OK with the group I can go ahead with a draft.

		Phill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:44 AM
> To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; 'Www-Xkms (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: 2.0 Draft 8
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 	It is possible that this has been discussed, if so, pl pardon
> me.
> 
> 	Are there plans for a binding document - e.g. How to carry the
> XKMS messages over SOAP, the syntax and semantics of carrying XKMS
> messages (like if two messages are carried in one SOAP 
> Envelope or BODY,
> what do they mean ? Accidental relationship or formal relationship) et
> al ?
> 
> cheers
> 
> |  -----Original Message-----
> |  From: www-xkms-request@w3.org 
> |  [mailto:www-xkms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> |  Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:50 AM
> |  To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Www-Xkms (E-mail)
> |  Subject: 2.0 Draft 8
> |  
> |  
> |  All,
> |  
> |  	Attached is a cleaned up version of the draft. The main 
> |  change is an
> |  improvement in the examples section and an additional 
> |  section that describes
> |  all the changes in v7 and v8. Also a bug in the figures was fixed.
> |  
> |  	The examples are still incomplete, in particular the 
> |  lack of KeyInfo
> |  and private key elements will be noticed!
> |  
> |  	The file you want to read is Overview.html, the file to 
> |  make changes
> |  to the source in is source.html.
> |  
> |  		Phill
> |  
> |  
> 
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 11:29:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:16 GMT