W3C
XML Key Management Specification (XKMS) Issues List

XKMS WG Chair(s):
Stephen Farrell < stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie >
Shivaram Mysore < shivaram.mysore@sun.com >
XKMS Editor(s):
Phillip Hallam-Baker < pbaker@verisign.com >
Merlin Hughes < merlin@baltimore.ie >
Issues List Maintainer(s):
Phillip Hallam-Baker < pbaker@verisign.com  >
Mike Just < mike.just@entrust.com >

This page enumerates outstanding issues on the XML Key Management Specification. The source of an issue need not be its first instance; it also might reference a cogent description or WG poll. Also, this document may not capture editorial tweaks and errors that were easily and quickly remedied.

This page will contain two tables.  Outstanding issues are recorded in the first table. They are typed as either Editorial (including typos and small clarifications), Clarification (where significant explanatory text is required) or Major.  In some cases, a volunteer has been identified, but in case not, then implementation of the proposed resolution is left to the specification editor(s).  Once an issue has been resolved (meaning that a resolution satisfactory to the group is agreed and has been included in the latest version of the specification), the issue is moved to the `Resolved Issues' table.  The issue index number is maintained to allow for consistent referencing.

New issues, and the resolution of issues should be reported to the XKMS mailing list. Before doing so, ensure that the issue is not already covered by an issue either in the "Outstanding Issues" table (in which case, a new issue need not be entered) or in the "Resolved Issues" table (in which case a new outstanding issue should be created, as opposed to moved from resolved to outstanding).  In addition, for newly discovered issues, the discoverer should identify an related issues that may already be cited in either table below.


Outstanding Issues

Last Minute Issues

#
Type &
Source
Specification Reference &
Issue Description

Proposed Resolution Details (incl Date)&
Volunteer (Specification editor(s) if blank)
37
Editorial/
[ Sept 2002 F2F]
[Part I - 2002/08/01] [Part II - 2002/08/01]

The "Status of this Document" section needs to be brought up-to-date.
Makes appropriate changes to this section at final draft (see also Issue 35). [ Sept 2002 F2F]
39
Editorial/
[ Sept 2002 F2F]
[Part I - 2002/08/01] [Part II - 2002/08/01]

In paragraph [1], the glyphs for (C) and TM are missing. 
Add appropriate glyphs.  [ Sept 2002 F2F]
17
Clarification/
[ Sept 2002 F2F]
[Part I - 2002/08/01] [Part II - 2002/08/01]

The specification should be validated against the requirements [XKMS Requirements].
Ensure that this validation is performed prior to moving through Working Group Last Call. [ Sept 2002 F2F].

Frederick Hirsch
       

Examples Issues

#
Type &
Source
Specification Reference &
Issue Description

Proposed Resolution Details (incl Date)&
Volunteer (Specification editor(s) if blank)
47
Clarification/
[ Sept 2002 F2F]
[Part I - 2002/08/01] [Part II - 2002/08/01]

Some remaining issues with examples, in particular the canonicalization of the signature block may be incorrect, the certificates presented bear no relation to the public keys allegedly certified.
Make changes/updates as described. Brian LaMacchia will provide some code for X.509 examples.[ Sept 2002 F2F]

Phill Hallam-Baker, Brian LaMacchia

Additional Issues Just added, mostly clarification requests at specified paragraph

#
Type &
Source
Specification Reference &
Issue Description

Proposed Resolution Details (incl Date)&
Volunteer (Specification editor(s) if blank)
200 Shivram
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0022.html
As a reminder:  Line 522 needs contents.
ISSUE - CREATE
DONE
201 Shivram
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0022.html
Line 90 /Section 4.6 still needs work  
202 Shivram
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0022.html
Also add in a section on "Versions, Namespaces URIs, and Identifiers" as in the
dsig and xenc core specs.
DONE
203 Reagle
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0027.html 
[41]XKMS supports two processing modes, synchronous processing and
   asynchronous processing.
 
 
204 Reagle
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0027.html 
[78] 
The example in 3.1 still doesn't reflect if in fact that things are QNAMEs
yet.
 
 
205 Reagle
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0027.html 
[94] I don't understand, are the ResultMinor Codes, QNAMEs? If so, are they
expect to be composed with a ResultMajor code? If so, I wouldn't think the
code is "Success.NoMatch" but a QNAME tuple (xkms:Success,xkms:NoMatch) or
some composition "xkms:Success.NoMatch".
 
?? Looks OK to me ??

explanation required, check consistency

206
Frederick
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0024.html
[159][163] ISSUE

[159],[163] Why is SOAP role used for XKMS application? Shouldn't this be the XKMS service URI for XKMS
and the xkms:Locate/Validate QNames for the XKMS/profile?

 
207
Frederick
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0024.html
190

presumably using UseKeyWith for policy will imply a different application URI/Identifier than those listed.

DONE
208
Frederick
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0024.html
448

in the compliance table, is "no security" recommended for operations other
than locate (e.g. registration, validation) since XKMS itself provides adequate security, and confidentiality is  optional?

DONE
209
Frederick
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0024.html
103-106

[103] Sentence incomplete, probably should say "is used to obtain the status of a pending request."

[106] schema is missing

 
210 Frederick http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0024.html PT2 [90] ISSUE

Compound request example TBS - not sure it is needed given part 1 text.
 

 
211 Frederick http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Feb/0025.html
[Section 4]DISCUSS
Not a biggie, but I really would like to discuss it before such a major change.

 

will do
212 Shivram http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Mar/0008.html  [190,318]DISCUSS