W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Issue + Proposal (Section 3.2.3)

From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:45:39 +0100
Message-ID: <18ec59cc050608164519e1a35e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Matt Long <mlong@mvsquared.net>, www-xkms@w3.org

>(As I read it he'll give back a ds:KeyValue if he can, even if you
asked for a beer in the
>RespondWith).

Yes. [103] allows for returning additional KeyInfo stuff that wasn't
requested (but is related to the request parameters).

> <RespondWith> element MUST be ...
I think MUST is too strict and would prefer SHOULD.

I also have a preference for "MAY fault" because it doesn't seem right
to fail a request simply because no RespondWith's were present and the
request was otherwise service'able.

> even if you asked for a beer in the RespondWith
Hey - I always return a pint when requested :)

Regards
Tommy

On 6/7/05, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> That looks just about fine to me. Only nit is that the
> SHOULD fault is perhaps a little too strict and might
> contradict the behaviour Tommy indicated in his earlier
> email (As I read it he'll give back a ds:KeyValue if
> he can, even if you asked for a beer in the RespondWith).
> So I think I'd prefer a MAY fault.
> 
> Regards,
> Stephen.
> 
> Matt Long wrote:
> 
> > All,
> > Issue, Proposal, and Justification for Section 3.2.3
> >
> > Issue: Section 3.2.3
> > - Use of terms strings is semantically incorrect.
> > - More RFC[2119] terminology needed for clarity.
> > - More clarity needed with respect to which elements encode <RespondWith>
> > - Faults conditions not specified.
> >
> > Proposed Text
> > [102] The <RespondWith> element encoded in a request specifies one or more
> > URI values that SHOULD resolve to data elements provided in either the
> > [XML-SIG] <ds:KeyInfo> element or private key information defined in the
> > section Cryptographic Algorithm Specific Parameters below.  The
> > <RespondWith> element MUST be encoded in requests of type LocateRequest,
> > ValidateRequest, RegisterRequest, ReissueRequest, RevokeRequest,
> > RecoverRequest.  If the receiver does not support any of the <RespondWith>
> > element URI values sent in the request or the specified request is not
> > encoded with <RespondWith> the receiver SHOULD fault with either  [XKMS
> > Bindings 3.4.1] (5) or [XKMS Bindings 3.4.2] (5).  The XML Signature
> > elements are described here for convenience. The normative reference is the
> > specification [XML-SIG].
> >
> > Justification:
> > - Eliminates the term 'strings' where URI is required.
> > - Explicity states which request types encoded <RespondWith>
> > - Disambiguates the element's value as the identifier.
> > - Makes normative the expected response of sending 'all' unresolvable URI
> > values.
> > - Makes normative the expected response of not encoding <RespondWith> with
> > required request types.
> > - Semantic modification clarifies ambiguities in schema.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Long
> > MV Squared Technologies
> > mlong@mvsquared.net
> > 901-848-2640
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2
> >
> >
> >
> 
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 23:45:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:44 UTC