W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

RE: XKMS Workshop minutes (draft)

From: Mike Just <Mike.Just@entrust.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:40:13 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4F653B0A375841AC75A8D17712B9C980F33B@sottmxs04.entrust.com>
To: "'PATO,JOE (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)'" <joe_pato@hp.com>, "'www-xkms-ws@w3.org'" <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
Comments included below...

-----Original Message-----
From: PATO,JOE (HP-PaloAlto,ex1) [mailto:joe_pato@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:45 PM
To: 'www-xkms-ws@w3.org'
Subject: XKMS Workshop minutes (draft)

Included are draft minutes for the XKMS Workshop. Please let me know if you
have any suggested changes. Note that the links to presentations don't work
yet - if you presented a set of slides at the meeting, please do send a copy
to  <mailto:reagle@w3.org> Joseph Reagle@w3.org so that we can get them
posted (and get these links to work!)

Joe Pato 
Principal Scientist
Trusted E-Services Lab - HP Labs
Chief Technology Officer
Internet Security Solutions Division
< http://www.hp.com/security <http://www.hp.com/security> >   


HP Labs Cambridge
1 Main Street, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA   02142
Phone: (617) 679-9376
Fax 1: (617) 679-9330
Fax 2: (781) 674-0142



xbulk2. XBulk

This will be a separate specification from XKMS, since it will be more
stable and do not want to revise it with each XKMS revision, but work on
this will influence XKMS, such as being able to say what private key
encryption format is expected back by the client [Phillip Hallam-Baker]. 

See the slides on XBulk. Baltimore and Entrust will work together to create
one common standard, and reuse XKMS schemas and definitions as much as

XBulk will also affect WSDL - to avoid limits and issues of testing specify
the maximum number of requests supported in WSDL. Also need to define
appropriate SOAP errors.

XBulk supports Template mode - define template, number of key pairs and
starting serial number. 


[MJ] The XBulk proposal does not support template mode.  This was a
suggestion by Phil as something that might be included as an additional
feature, in the case that bulk operations are considered by the working


scope3. Scope

Joe Pato called for the sense of the room with regard to pursuing a W3C
activity for XKMS. No objections were raised and there was clear agreement
to proceed to propose a W3C activity.

Scope Discussion

*	Clarify initial scope is 1.1 cleanup [Joseph Reagle] 

*	Necessary for speed - customers are ready to field XKMS now, not put
in PKI and then have to replace it [Jeremy Epstein]. Could wait up to 9
months, longer. v1.0 finished in Nov, been 8 months with little progress.
[Phillip Hallam-Baker] 1.1 end of Jan. Implementation and interop has been
happening.[Jeremy ] Need use case workgroup to determine use cases and
validate time requirements [Joe Pato]


*	Would like additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 distinction [Joseph Reagle] 

*	X-Bulk requirements should start at the W3C at the same time but be
out of this scope [Joseph Reagle]  


[MJ]  As stated, this appears to be saying contradictory things.  I believe
that Joseph's comment was that bulk operations should not be considered as a
short-term requirement for XKMS to satisfy.  It is more important to
dedicate our time on establishing an official working group, and completing
v1.2 of the current XKMS draft within the next 6 months.  [MJ's additional
note: This does not rule out including bulk operations in the second phase,
along with the 4-corner model and other items that the group felt might be
long-term considerations.]

*	Privacy requirements should be added to list [Barbara Fox, Daniel
Weitzner ] 

*	Registration and location: Include access and use of keys beyond
terms made available. P3P offers means to specify policies and mechanisms.
Issues include notice (say what service does), compliance (trust model,
relying on service to comply) [Daniel Weitzner ]. Advisory information
versus cryptographic enforcement [Phillip Hallam-Baker] 

*	Managing expectations and obligations goes beyond cryptography [Joe

*	Privacy approach essential to become deployed standard - use P3P
material if you can. At least have hooks. [Barbara Fox]. what is scenario
for privacy? if you trust them enough for processing, can also trust privacy
[Joseph Reagle ] define interface to return P3P privacy statement vs deep
integration [Blair Dillaway ] Need hook for registration [Barbara Fox] will
write draft for notification [Phillip Hallam-Baker] 


*	Need to include long term in activity definition [Mike Just], but
aim for short horizons, 1 year [Joseph Reagle] 

*	Need to clarify client trust relationship with server, avoid browser
issue of building in trusted roots [Frederick Hirsch]. Difference since only
need to trust XKMS server. Establishing trust between client and trust
service important in XKMS, but can be built using SAML [Phillip
Hallam-Baker] Don't want to rebuild root structure of PKIX, hence should
allow another way, e.g. PGP peer mechanism etc. The slide showing the root
key in the vault does not make this clear [Barbara Fox] Need to understand
key renewal and private key issues [Joe Pato] Do not mandate trust model,
question must be addressed in a different draft - trust axiom optional, not
required, may be proposed in scope of group 

*	What is priority of extensions in presentation [Barbara Fox]. 

*	Determine what needs to be done for legacy integration,
non-normative white paper. 

*	Need for audit capability - audit guidelines, but make it deployable
unlike CAs,RAs[Mack Hicks], Declare what is out of scope, make it audit
neutral [Daniel Weitzner ], need implementation guidelines [Jeff Hodges] 

*	Need to decide goal, don't need requirements for 1.2 , but should
make a requirements document available clearly articulating goals. [ Joseph
Reagle ] Phillip Hallam-Baker should send the list of errata for 1.1 to the

*	4-corner model, including 4-corner "hat", out of scope.  


[MJ]  Adding to Phil's comment from a previous email, I believe that (like a
number of other items) although the 4-corner model is in scope (while the
"hat" isn't), I believe the consensus was that it was out-of-scope for the
short-term (where "short-term" means the next 6 months which will be focused
on completing and testing v1.2 of XKMS).


W3C_activity_process4. W3C Activity Process

Joseph Reagle, see slides and W3C process document)

Number of activities in different domains - groups within activities
(working groups, interest groups, coordination groups). Usually limited to
members, but some public (e.g. XML Protocol, XML Signature, XML Encryption).
People at the W3C are the glue between groups. The process is to create an
activity, establish a working group, establish resources, including chair,
editors, authors. Document stages include working draft, last call
(requirements have been addressed), candidate recommendation (implementation
and interop testing have been done), proposed recommendation (referred to
W3C advisor committee), and recommendation (recommended by the W3C


XKMS 1.2 with cleanups and then 2.0
How many working groups, dependencies, deliverables.  

[MJ]  I'm not sure that I was clear on this from the workshop.  Does this
mean that we're going to try to bring v1.2 forward as a "candidate
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 07:40:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:21 UTC