RE: Draft working group thingie

comments below.

-dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel J. Weitzner [mailto:djweitzner@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:25 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft working group thingie
> 
> 
> Phillip & others,
> 
> Thanks for moving this along.
> 
> One question below...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
> <pbaker@verisign.com>
> Cc: <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:08 PM
> Subject: RE: Draft working group thingie
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> > Principal Scientist
> > VeriSign Inc.
> > pbaker@verisign.com
> > 781 245 6996 x227
> >
> > > My main question is deliverables.
> > >
> > > I'd like a WG or two do to the following:
> > > 1. KISS - XML (namespace/schema) cleanup and extensibility.
> > > 2. KRSS - general cleanup.
> >
> > I would add in X-BULK on the grounds that it is
> > (1) not a great deal of work
> > (2) has a significant user base
> 
> I'd like to hear a bit more about who the user base is and 
> how they will be
> represented in the WG. Ideally, it would be nice to hear from the user
> organizations themselves.
> 

I believe the user base for X-BULK are the CA vendors and token vendors
(SmartCards, USB... etc).  Is there a direct benefit of X-BULK for any other
user base?  


> > (3) would exercise the extensability of KISS
> >
> >
> > > This seems to be calling for two other documents:
> > > 3. The cryptographic enhancement of XML Protocol Messages
> > > 4. Description of cryptographic enhancements in a Web Service
> > > Description.
> >
> >
> > 3 would be the signing and encryption of SOAP messages. 4 
> is simply the
> > observation that to be useful WSDL must allow interfaces to declare
> 'encrypt
> > this stuff, sign this stuff) etc.
> >
> > I think that these are not work items for Working Group 1, 
> they would be
> > suitable work items for a Working Group 2 formed after 
> Working Group 1 has
> > largely completed work.
> >
> > The one piece that would require some prior thought is the specific
> instance
> > of signing XKMS messages. This need not require the problem to be
> addressed
> > in the large. It would be preferrable however that Working 
> Group 1 would
> > design something that would be useful later on to working group 2.
> >

I would add that the signing SOAP messages may fall under the same category
as signing XKMS messages in respect to priority.  My claim is based on an
assumption that many early implementations of XMKS will likely bind to SOAP
v1.1.  I can't give more evidence to support this assumption other than that
is the approach that I've been considering for Identrus.  The reasoning is
that we'll have other in-house applications that require digital signature.
If we require, of our community, a mechanism to sign XKMS messages, we'd
still have to deal with signing SOAP messages.

> > Phill
> >
> >
>