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

Change log 2

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A3110070@vhqpostal6.verisign.com>
To: "Www-Xkms (E-mail)" <www-xkms@w3.org>

 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0027.html> Jpseph
>I don't think it's ready yet, but the WS glossary might be of use in the 
>future. (Or maybe we should point them at our own definitions?)
No action
[39] mention of hated policy
DONE - new text:
The means by which the service specifies protocol options which it accepts
is outside the scope of this document. If the mechanism used for this
purpose uses URI based identifiers for this purpose the following
identifiers SHOULD be used:
   [41]XKMS supports two processing modes, synchronous processing and
   asynchronous processing.
[66] Angle brackets.
The rule is intended to be that elements are in angle brackets and type
names are not. Anything else is a bug but I can't find a specific example
[78] ISSUE
[94] DISCUSS (if we must, I think the meaning is clear)
[95] Changed wording

The <RequestSignatureValue> element in a response contains the value of the
signature block in the corresponding request. This provides a cryptographic
linkage between the request and the response.
[I prefer not to change the element name as the form used is a result of the
naming convention]
[140] Changed as follows:
A Key Binding asserts a binding between data elements that relate to a
public key including the <ds:KeyName>, <ds:KeyValue> and <ds:X509Data>
components contained in a <ds:KeyInfo> element. Furthermore, the Service
represents to the client accessing the service and to that client alone that
the binding between the data elements is valid under whatever trust policy
the service offers to that client.
[211] I don't understand the point, the unverified key binding cannot be
used in the validate request, only a query can.
[384] [386] DONE
(The optional, should not thing was not ideal phrasewise but it was the only
way to capture the intent)
[95] See fix above
[101] fixed
[159][163] ISSUE
[190] Issue]
[448] issue]
edits, all done except for:
21, 118 (fix code later)
103-106  - ISSUE
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 16:50:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:41 UTC