Re: Misc editorial

Hi Jose -

> How does it sound if I do the following changes in Figure 3 [p 154]:

Looks good to me.  To convey the same information it might not hurt to add

<Status StatusValue="Valid">

below the ValidateResult (XKMS URI deliberatly left out for "Valid").

> I added it.  I am a bit confused. Isn't it also lacking an Id attribute
> or something to relate it to the pending request? Also, is
> <Result> the element we need to use in the notification?
> 
> From what I know the spec doesn't define how a server notifies the client
> that a pending request is processed. That's why I get confused with
> <Result>.

I believe I commented on this some time ago, but I could be wrong and
I am too lazy to check.  Like you say, it is at least misleading as
the structure of the notification is unspecified in  XKMS; for both of
the notification methods mentioned in the spec (smtp & http).  You
could replace it with text similar to "The XKMS service notifies the
client about the completion of the request processing using the
notification mechanism specified in the <PendingNotification> element
in the initial request".

> Looking at the table and the use of Receiver and Sender in other cases, ...
I used the table in [120] for guidance. The description in the Sender
row states "An error occured that was due to the message sent by the
sender" which for me provided the closest match.

> Thanks! Are these sample message exchanges with your server?
Yes, but reformatted with human consumption in mind and with
signature's recomputed.

Regards
Tommy

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 16:56:36 UTC