- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:51:45 +0000
- To: www-xkms-ws@w3c.org
Ok. As as result of this thread are we then ok with the
requirements document containing words to the effect of:
1 XKMS specifications will define how XKMS messages and
transactions can be secured
2 message and transaction security will be based ("directly")
on xkmdsig and xmlenc
3 XKMS specifications will define how transport layer
security can be used to protect connections over
which XKMS messages/transactions are transported
4 Each specification will define which of the above
security mechanisms are mandatory-to-implement, optional
etc.
5 Unless there is a particular reason, all specifications
will make the same set of choices for 4 above
(And don't beat me up about the words, beat up Mike and
Frederick when they include some words:-)
Stephen.
Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > I guess I would tend towards the more self-contained approach - something
> > like specifying use of xmldsig and xmlenc "directly" for xkms where
> > we need message level protection (and perhaps tls/ssl where we don't).
>
> +1. SOAP Security is likely to be transport level security. :)
>
> --
> Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> Encryption)
> http://www.zolera.com
--
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell
Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 05:51:37 UTC