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

Re: Requirements & F2F minutes update

From: Yassir Elley <yassir.elley@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:50:00 -0400
Message-ID: <3CDA8C97.18800EC4@sun.com>
To: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
CC: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@fjhirsch.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
Blair,

Comments below:

Blair Dillaway wrote:

> Yassir,
>
> I detect an agreement in principal here, just some wording issues.  I
> concerned about us mandating an implementation for something that isn't
> yet a standard.  We could argue ourselves into a position where we're
> blocked pending XML-P making progress.

Yes, I agree it is just a matter of fine-tuning the wording.

>
>
> I'm Ok with language along the lines you suggest.  How about the
> following:
>
> a) The specification MUST provide a binding to SOAP 1.2, provided that
> specification has reached CR status prior to the XKMS WG completing its
> work, and provide a binding to SOAP 1.1 (for interoperability purposes).
>
> b) XKMS services MUST implement SOAP 1.2 once that specification has
> achieved Recommendation status (Joseph - is this the correct W3C wording

> to indicate an approved standard?)

Two questions for clarification:

1) Why are you distinguishing between CR (Candidate Recommendation) in (a) and
Recommendation in (b)? Was this on purpose? I would think we would want CR
in both (a) and (b), but I am not that familiar with W3C process (Joseph?).

2) With regard to (a), what is your proposed qualifier before "... provide a binding to SOAP 1.1".
(MUST/SHOULD/MAY)?

I think we are almost there.

-Yassir.


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yassir.Elley@sun.com [mailto:Yassir.Elley@sun.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:38 AM
> To: Frederick Hirsch
> Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Requirements & F2F minutes update
>
> Firstly, for the sake of clarity, my understanding is that SOAP 1.1 was
> submitted to the XML Protocol WG, which is working on SOAP 1.2.
> Therefore,
> the term "XML Protocol" is interchangeable with "SOAP 1.2". It is not
> interchangeable with the term "SOAP 1.1". Therefore, phrases like "XML
> Protocol, including both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2" and "XML Protocol as defined
> in SOAP
> 1.1" don't really make sense because XML Protocol does not include SOAP
> 1.1 nor is it defined in SOAP 1.1. If my understanding is incorrect,
> please correct me.
>
> Secondly, I believe neither the current wording in the requirements
> document nor the proposed wording below reflect the consensus achieved
> at the F2F meeting. Specifically, we don't want to say "Every XKMS
> service MUST implement SOAP 1.1", since it is potentially encumbered. I
> am fairly flexibly on the rest of the wording.
>
> According to the minutes:
> "Resolution: Target 1.2 for normative purposes. Add requirement in the
> bindings section: Services must implement SOAP 1.2, and may have other
> bindings. E.g., constrained devices, etc. May also provide 1.1 interop
> or profiling (different namespaces, etc)."
>
> Because of the potential IPR issues with SOAP 1.1, and because the XKMS
> WG is chartered as Royalty Free, we had decided that we would make SOAP
> 1.2 mandatory to implement and would not require implementation of SOAP
> 1.1 at all. We had also decided that, for the sake of interoperability,
> we would specify a SOAP
> 1.1 binding, but would not require implementation of it.
>
> With regard to the schedule issues, I believe it was mentioned at the
> meeting that SOAP 1.2 is nearing Last Call. Since the XKMS spec is not
> nearing Last Call, it is probably safe to say "every XKMS service MUST
> implement SOAP 1.2." Clearly, that is our intent, modulo scheduling
> issues. With regard to
> "revisiting the question of whether implementors must support
> SOAP 1.2 should that specification reach CR status prior to the XKMS WG
> completing our work," I'm not sure how that works with respect to a
> Requirements Document that uses the word MUST. In other words, if our
> Requirements Document states that "Every XKMS service MUST implement
> SOAP 1.1" and that Requirements Document progresses to CR, can we later
> decide to
> ignore that requirement in the spec? Can we still claim conformance with
> the Requirements? One way around this may be to use "SHOULD" or "MAY"
> instead of "MUST".
>
> Revised proposed wording (taken basically from the minutes):
>
> a) The specification MUST provide a binding to SOAP 1.2 and
> (MAY/SHOULD?)
> provide a binding to SOAP 1.1 (for interoperability purposes).
>
> b) Every XKMS service MUST implement SOAP 1.2 when standardized.
>
> If this wording is not acceptable to anyone, please propose alternate
> wording. As I said, I'm pretty flexible on the wording with the
> exception of "Every XKMS service MUST implement SOAP 1.1.", which should
> not be implied.
>
> Regards,
> Yassir.
>
> >is this the idea:
> >
> >a. The specification MUST provide a binding to XML Protocol, including
> >both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2.
> >
> >b. Every XKMS service MUST implement XML Protocol as defined in SOAP
> >1.1
> >and SHOULD implement SOAP 1.2 when standardised."
> >
> >Blair Dillaway wrote:
> >> I support adding a SOAP 1.2 binding to the spec given that it appears
>
> >> to further along in the W3C process than the XKMS spec.  However,
> >> since the SOAP 1.2 spec has not yet reached last call status, much
> >> less candidate recommendation status, I believe it is premature to
> >> include language along the lines of "Every XKMS service MUST
> >> implement XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2)".
> >>
> >> The only firm specification is SOAP 1.1 and it is the only SOAP
> >> specification for which there are multiple deployed implementations.
> >> So, I believe we must continue specifying a SOAP 1.1 binding and this
>
> >> binding is the only one we can presently require for implementors.
> >>
> >> I'm open to revisiting the question of whether implementors must
> >> support SOAP 1.2 should that specification reach CR status prior to
> >> the XKMS WG completing our work.
> >>
> >> Blair
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:hirsch@fjhirsch.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:47 PM
> >> To: Yassir Elley
> >> Cc: Shivaram Mysore; www-xkms@w3.org
> >> Subject: 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
> >>>Protocol>XKMSspecification
> >>
> >>
> >>>Protocol>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 Thursday, 9 May 2002 10:55:09 GMT

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