W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] dig sig and requirements ready for pub!

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:40:36 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670905050340u729a9a41lb4761f59dd9ba393@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, ext Kai Hendry <hendry@aplix.co.jp>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
> On 4 May 2009, at 18:42, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Frederick Hirsch
>> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>>> The Identifier property is useful for audit and management in the
>>> backend.
>>>  I believe this should remain in the specification and should remain a
>>> normative section, agreeing with Thomas note in the chat. It was added
>>> based
>>> on requirements from WG members.
>> I understand the use case, but i still don't understand why we are
>> mandating the use of the dsp:Identifier if it's not going to be used
>> by the UA? If a signer wants to use dsp:Identifier for whatever
>> reason, then are free to do so by using the Signature Properties spec.
>> Putting something in the spec that does not do anything doesn't make
>> sense to me.
> Some of these use cases may, in the future, affect distributor or user agent
> behavior.  Some (like revocation) might get broken if the identifier isn't
> universally deployed.
> Again, what's the cost?

I'm not debating is this is a good idea or not. Just trying to
understand the use case. Thanks for the explanation, makes more sense
to me now. As the cost is minimal, I don't have an issue.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 10:41:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC