- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:33:09 -0800
- To: "Www-Xkms (E-mail)" <www-xkms@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A34D6145@vhqpostal6.verisign.com>
This is the change log on Reagle Comments (other comments in editing at the moment) XKMS Part 1 Minor wording changes: - these are by paragraph number, not issue number [P9]This document specifies protocols for distributing and registering public keys, suitable for use in conjunction with the standard for XML Signatures <outbind://1/#XML-SIG> [XML-SIG] defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and companion standard for XML encryption <outbind://1/#XML-Enc> [XML-ENC]. [P40] No change The proposed alternative wording is ambiguous and weakens the requirement from MUST NOT to MAY, MUST NOT unless is perfectly good grammar. [P42][P43] No change The optional status features are as discussed at the face to face. No concrete alternative is proposed. [P57] Deferred till major edits cycle. [P82] Deferred The point here is that if XKMS is layered on HTTP tere is no guarantee the notification is going to get through. although we could layer on DIME that is nowehere near standard yet, will add in some clarifying remarks [P86] No change, existing text is sufficient There is an inline definition: a signing oracle, that is sign a messages whose content is guessable by an attacker. [P107] No change yet All the examples are still requiring tweaks. [P119] Deferred See the policy identifier discussion on the list [P123] No Change The .test domain is specifically defined for the purpose of use in examples, can add in a citation to the RFC if we must http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt> Internet Protocol addresses and Domain Name System names used in examples are purposely chosen to avoid confusion with assigned addresses and names. All Internet Protocol Addresses are in the reserved non-routable network 10.x.x.x. All DNS names are in the reserved domain .test <outbind://1/#rfc2606> [RFC2606] [P132] Deferred See the policy identifier discussion on the list [P330] Deferred Pending Don's report. However I believe that we should specify in our draft the identifier that we propose be used.
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:33:13 UTC