- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:40:36 +0200
- 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 http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 10:41:32 UTC