W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Serving static responses

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:05:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A3F702A6@vhqpostal6.verisign.com>
To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
OK after a telephone discussion:

1) A service can only return static data if the client signals it does
not require the request/response binding.

2) This would be an extra item in ResponseMechanism

3) When WSDL becomes real we have a mechanism for stating that this
service offers this type of response...

		Phill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Serving static responses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phill,
> 
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
> > 
> > All,
> > 
> >         One of the issues that has been pointed out with the spec is
> > that it is not currently possible to serve static signed 
> data. That is a
> > mjor problem as it means that XKMS is not as flexible as OCSP.
> 
> I'm not so sure its a major problem, perhaps more of a 
> feature:-) Don't
> you have an implicit public key certificate once the same response is
> sent out twice?
> 
> Anyway, what'd prevent the application of two signatures, one covering
> the static data, the other (which can use an on-line, lower quality
> signing key) including the replay protection stuff?
> 
> >         The problem is the RequestID element in the result 
> message that
> > has become required rather than optional.
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> -- 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Stephen Farrell         				   
> Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
> 39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
> Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
> Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
> 

Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 13:05:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:40 UTC