W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Action item

From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:48:24 +0100
Message-ID: <18ec59cc04101206484888255d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com>, www-xkms@w3.org

> Is an empty ds:KeyInfo even schema valid?

An empty KeyInfo is not schema valid.

> Secondary question to server implementers: if the request had
> contained a KeyValue you'd never heard of, but is otherwise
> the same, would you return bob's key?

In my case a NoMatch or some such would have been returned.

Tommy


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:02:49 +0100, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> Good one guys. Do we need to say somewhere that empty ds:KeyInfo
> MUST NOT be put into requests? (Is an empty ds:KeyInfo even
> schema valid? Bet we can get disagreement there:-)
> 
> Secondary question to server implementers: if the request had
> contained a KeyValue you'd never heard of, but is otherwise
> the same, would you return bob's key? (I realise that the
> spec is properly silent on this "policy" issue, but just
> wondered.)
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Lindberg wrote:
> 
> > That's it, Yunhao.
> >
> > Tommy
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:24:42 -0400, Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Tommy,
> >>
> >>Thanks for the insider information. I am still getting a failure with out
> >>the KeyName. The request message is something like,
> >>
> >><SOAP-ENV:Envelope
> >>xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> >>xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> >>xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> >>xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
> >>- <SOAP-ENV:Body>
> >>- <xkms:LocateRequest xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#"
> >>Id="_ce8734ab-cf09-40f0-813e-aea6aa889015"
> >>Service="http://62.77.172.83:4080/xkiss/soap11">
> >>  <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:KeyName</xkms:RespondWith>
> >>  <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:KeyValue</xkms:RespondWith>
> >>  <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:X509Cert</xkms:RespondWith>
> >>- <xkms:QueryKeyBinding xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#"
> >>Id="_dd53968f-b75d-4984-bf64-857d4bc23134">
> >>  <KeyInfo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" />
> >>  <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Signature</xkms:KeyUsage>
> >>  <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Encryption</xkms:KeyUsage>
> >>  <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Exchange</xkms:KeyUsage>
> >>  <xkms:UseKeyWith Application="urn:ietf:rfc:2633"
> >>Identifier="bob@example.com" />
> >>  <xkms:TimeInstant Time="2004-10-12T12:50:09Z" />
> >>  </xkms:QueryKeyBinding>
> >>  </xkms:LocateRequest>
> >>  </SOAP-ENV:Body>
> >>  </SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
> >>
> >>I suspect the empty KeyInfo caused the problem, is it true?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Yunhao
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Tommy Lindberg" <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
> >>To: "Yunhao Zhang" <yzhang@sqldata.com>
> >>Cc: <www-xkms@w3.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:16 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Action item
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Yunhao -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes. I can reconfirm your claim,
> >>>
> >>>Glad to hear that, thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I got a failure ...
> >>>
> >>>I checked out your request; if I am not mistaken, you specify a sequence
> >>
> >>of
> >>
> >>><KeyInfo><KeyName>Bob</KeyName></KeyInfo>. You don't need to do that.
> >>>The Locate operation will work just fine with UseKeyWith alone.
> >>>
> >>>Regards
> >>>Tommy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:43:57 -0400, Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com>
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>A quick note to confirm that I have implemented the asynchronous
> >>>>>behaviour required by test case T7 as outlined in the original e-mail
> >>>>>below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes. I can reconfirm your claim, although I got a failure for the final
> >>>>results, which was caused by my tool for not providing a correct KeyName
> >>
> >>in
> >>
> >>>>the request message. BTW, I wonder if we should define the KeyName to be
> >>>>used in all the test cases if it is required. So far, each
> >>
> >>implementation
> >>
> >>>>requires a different KeyName, and it is hard to automate the tests.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Yunhao
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:48:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:23 GMT