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 09:06:02 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F405869B08@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Krishna Sankar'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "'Www-Xkms (E-mail)'" <www-xkms@w3.org>

I think that the advantage in this case is that we can explicitly state the
security assumptions that XKMS depends upon and how to apply each choice of
underlying technology.

However, Regardless of how the message security is organized XKMS will be
using its own security on top in XKRSS, e.g. we never send private keys
en-clair at the XKMS level even if we know the transport is secure.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Krishna Sankar'; 'Www-Xkms (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: 2.0 Draft 8
> On Friday 14 June 2002 11:30 am, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > 	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.
> I'm a big fan of seperating specification to provide clarity 
> with respect 
> to dependencies and layering. In the end if parts are similar 
> mature and 
> such, they can be recombined, but during the development it 
> proves to be 
> useful to me.
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:04:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:39 UTC