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

Re: XKMS Requirements Last Call: Comments - closed

From: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:47:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3CDB42BE.1020702@fjhirsch.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@fjhirsch.com>
CC: Shivaram.Mysore@sun.com, www-xkms@w3.org
We also added a reference to the Activity Statement, addressing the 
concern in the "Status of the Document" comment.

The other editorial comments regarding the "Status of the Document" were 
fixed in a previous editorial pass, as stated.

Thanks again, and we believe these issues are resolved.


Frederick and Mike
--
Frederick Hirsch (hirsch@fjhirsch.com)
Mike Just (mike.just@entrust.com)



Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> Shivaram
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the XKMS requirements at
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2002Apr/0007.html
> 
> These issues are addressed in the May 7, 2002 Editors copy of the XKMS 
> requirements ( http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms-req.html ):
> 
> == 1.  Status of the Document -
> these changes were fixed in a an earlier editors draft revision.
>     
>     
> == 2.  Introduction and Terminology
> == o  I paragraph - replace " and" with "," in the following =="management
> ==     requirements of XML Encryption [XML Encryption] and XML ==Digital
> ==     Signature [XMLDSIG]"
> ==     + remove word "to" after the above phrase.
> ==     (basically slight reword sentence due to usage of >1 =="and")
> 
> revised wording to be
> "In particular, it is a goal of XML key management to support the public 
> key management requirements of XML Encryption [XML Encryption], XML 
> Digital Signature [XMLDSIG] and to be consistent with the Security 
> Assertion Markup Language [SAML]."
> 
> I believe the second "to" is correct: it is a goal to support ... and to 
> be ...
> 
> == o  Asynchronous exchange -
> ==     - possibly reword the sentence starting with "For ==example .."
> ==     (it is not sounding good to me)
> 
> reworded sentence
> "When client registration requires time consuming checks it is more 
> practical for a client to return at a later time for a completed 
> response, for example."
> 
> == o  Key Name
> ==     Rephrase 2nd Sentence - 3 instances of word "key".  I ==believe,
> ==     the last 2 usages of key could be confusing to someone.
> 
> modified wording (in editors draft, not yet on web)
> "The Key Name property is not required and when associated with a key in 
> registration is not required to be a unique identifier for that key."
>     
> == o  Payload Security
> ==     replace "an" with "a"
> kept "an XML digital signature" since XML is treated like it begins with 
> "ex" in this case.
> 
> == o  Proof of Possession (PoP)
> ==     My suggested reword:
> ==     Performing an action with a private key to demonstrate
> ==     possession of it. An example is to create a signature ==using a
> ==     registered private signing key, to prove possession of ==it.
> 
> reworded
> "Performing an action with a private key to demonstrate possession of 
> it. An example is to create a signature using a registered private 
> signing key to prove possession of it."
>        
> == 3.  2.1 Universality and Usability
> == Item #12
> ==     Use of word "excessive" - should we qualify this?
> 
> reworded, based on discussion at F2F:
> "An XKMS server SHOULD be able to pass requests to another XKMS server 
> for processing with minimal overhead."
> 
> == 4.  2.2 Security Model
> == Item #2
> ==     replace "be encrypting using" with "use"
> ==     replace "XML encryption" with "XML Encryption"
> 
> did not change (apart from capitalization in editors working draft, not 
> yet on web).
> 
> We believe these issues are now closed, and thank you for your comments.
 >
 > Frederick and Mike
 > --
 > Frederick Hirsch (hirsch@fjhirsch.com)
 > Mike Just (mike.just@entrust.com)
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 23:36:49 GMT

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