(unknown charset) [Issue 345-ml] Namespace Inclusions

Hi Matt,

This is just a confirmation message for closing the decision cycle.

The comments you reported[1] were assigned issue id 345-ml. p. [60]
of the bindings document was changed to read:

"[60] XKMS messages that will be embedded in SOAP documents SHOULD be
signed using the Exclusive XML Canonicalization algorithm [XML-EXC-C14N]."

As Tommy signaled, this was already being suggested, even if not directly
by pp. [89, 90] of the XKMS specification.

Please reply to this message if you have any objections.

Thanks,

-jose

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/pr-issues/issues.html#345-ml
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-REC-DRAFT/REC-DRAFT-xkms-part-2.html

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:14:59PM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
> Section 3.2 (Bindings) [1] states:
> “Insertion of an XKMS message into the SOAP message structure must not alter
> namespace prefixes, or use of default namespaces, within the XKMS message. Any
> change in these encodings will likely break an XML Signature internal to the
> XKMS messages due to the use of QNames and namespace prefixes. The implementer
> must insure that prefix values used with the SOAP namespaces_h_t_t_p_:_/_/_w_w_w_._w_3_._o_r_g_/
> _2_0_0_3_/_0_5_/_s_o_a_p_-_e_n_v_e_l_o_p_e(SOAP 1.2) and_h_t_t_p_:_/_/_s_c_h_e_m_a_s_._x_m_l_s_o_a_p_._o_r_g_/_s_o_a_p_/_e_n_v_e_l_o_p_e_/
> (SOAP 1.1) do not conflict with prefixes used in the XKMS message.”
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
>  
> I read this to suggest some form of ‘prefix-collision’, which I do not
> understand.  Is the intent is to make XKMS prefixes unique vs. soap prefixes,
> why?  How can a resolved URI of a prefix within the XKMS message created any
> issue with the soap:Envelope, soap:Body, or soap:Header.
>  
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2-bindings/#XKMS_2_0_Section_3_2