Re: Requirements & F2F minutes update

I thought we decided that 1.2 was required but that 1.1 was as well due 
to the need to interoperate with existing implementations. I heard us 
say that the impact of requiring both would be minimal.

If we change the requirements to only require 1.2 shall we also add the 
wording that "servers SHOULD also support 1.1"?

Thanks for the additional comments

< Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

Yassir Elley wrote:
> Frederick and Mike have done a great job with the Requirements document. Thanks!
> 
> I do have a few comments on the May 2002 Draft.
> 
> 2.1.4
> We agreed at the meeting that the normative reference will be to SOAP 1.2,
> not SOAP 1.1. Suggested wording:
> "The specification MUST provide a binding to XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2) [<link to XML
> Protocol>] [List(Blair Dillaway, Yassir Elley)]. The XKMSspecification is required to
> profile XML Protocol for interoperability, including use of document literal including."
> 
> 2.1.5
> We agreed at the meeting that the normative reference will be to SOAP 1.2,
> not SOAP 1.1. Suggested wording:
> "Every XKMS service MUST implement XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2)"
> 
> 2.2.4
> A space is needed between or and payload. Suggested wording:
> "..., either transport security or payload protection."
> 
> 2.4.11
> I think the words "Protocol schedule" are missing here. Suggested wording:
> "... XML Protocol bindings may be published as a separate document from the specification
> to avoid dependencies on the XML Protocol schedule. ..."
> 
> 2.5.4
> I am not sure the term "PKIX" is relevant here. "X.509" is probably adequate. Also, XML DSIG
> refers to it as X509Certificate, not X509Cert. Suggested wording:
> "The X509Certificate KeyInfo format MUST be supported by a trust server if the service
> claims interoperability with X.509."
> 
> Also, neither X509Chain nor OCSP are defined in the XML Signature spec. Suggested wording:
> "X509Chain and OCSP MUST be defined in the XKMS specifications." and probably
> remove the following sentence, or change it to
> "X509CRL is defined in the XML Signature recommendation."
> 
> 3 Out of Scope
> Please add my name as the source for item 18. i.e. add "[List (Yassir Elley)]"
> 
> -Yassir.
> 
> Shivaram Mysore wrote:
> 
> 
>>All,
>>
>>The Minutes [1] for F2F meeting held on 23 April have been uploaded on to the
>>site.  Please send in your comments/corrections to the list.  Also please take a
>>look at your AI and send resolutions to the list.
>>
>>Thanks to Merlin Hughes and Glenn Fink for the excellent notes.
>>
>>Also, the new version of Requirements [2] have been uploaded to the website.
>>Please send in your comments to the list.  Thanks to Frederick Hirsch and Mike
>>Just for the excellent work.
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Minutes/20020423-f2f2-draft-minutes.html
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms-req.html
>>
>>/Shivaram
>>_______________________________________________________________________________
>>Shivaram H. Mysore <shivaram.mysore@sun.com>
>>
>>Software Engineer                               Co-Chair, W3C's XKMS WG
>>Java Card Engineering                          http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS
>>JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc.
>>
>>Direct: (408)276-7524
>>Fax:    (408)276-7608
>>
>>http://java.sun.com/people/shivaram  (Internal: http://mysore.sfbay/)
>>_______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 19:36:18 UTC