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

Comments on 20030213 Part II

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:12:29 -0500
To: pbaker@verisign.com
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-Id: <200302211712.29961.reagle@w3.org>

More comments on the latest drafts.

XML Key Management Specification (XKMS 2.0)
Part II: Protocol Bindings
W3C Editors Copy 16 December 2002


   [13]The following terms are used within this document with the
   particular meaning indicated below:

Couldn't this just cite part I?

   [63]Insertion of an XKMS message into the SOAP message structure must
   not alter namespace prefixes, or use of default namespaces, within the
   XKMS message. Any change in these encodings will likely break XML
   Signature internal to the XKMS messages. The implementer must insure
   that prefix values used with the SOAP namespaces
   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope (SOAP 1.2) and
   http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope (SOAP 1.1) do not conflict
   with prefixes used in the XKMS message.

Perhaps a little more explaination would be useful here. The reason that 
this should not be done is because c14n and exc-c14n canonicalization 
algorithms do not canonicalize namespace prefixes nor QNames, particularly 
those that appear in attribute values which both SOAP and XKMS make use of. 

    4 Abstract Protocol

My comment on Part I regarding the prose of its section 2.5 being confusing 
is mitigated by the exposition and examples in this section. Question, 
section 4 in part 2 isn't really about the bindings is it? It seems 
orthogonal to the bindings and I'd suggest moving Part2:4 to Part1:2.5 . 
Failing that, Part1:2.5 should say that further exposition and examples can 
be found in Part II.
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 17:12:32 UTC

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