W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > March 2002

[Hierarchy] RE: time for work...

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:55:51 -0800
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F4058699B7@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, www-xkms@w3.org
> I have a host of concerns (e.g., which parts are protocol 
> request/action 
> and which parts query; what is this "<Respond><string>" 
> thing, why doesn't 
> it look like the Query structure instead of non-namespace qualified 
> "strings"; etc.) 

Ah I think that is a reasonable comment, there is a historical issue
here that I don't think we should go into.

What we need to do as a minimum is to make the Respond tag
more descriptive, one option would be to use <Return>, although
that could be confusing. In SAML we used <RespondWith>.

So the request would be something like:

<RegisterRequest>
	...
	<RespondWith>X509Cert</RespondWith>
	<RespondWith>PrivateKey</RespondWith>
	<RespondWith>PGPKey</RespondWith>
</RegisterRequest>


> I'd like to do it in a 
> way that 
> clearly distinguishes the query from the protocol; and cleans 
> up the query 
> (query/respond/answer or where/select/result in my 
> understanding) with 
> respect to namespace qualified and XML typed elements.

This might be an argument for adopting the hierarchical structure
in the requests and responses etc.

That would allow the logical aspects that are common to the 
request/response structure to be factored out into a separate
piece of text.

		Phill 



Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 14:50:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:38 UTC