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

Re: [Hierarchy] RE: time for work...

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:08:28 -0500
Message-Id: <200203052008.PAA31689@tux.w3.org>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, www-xkms@w3.org
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 12:55, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 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>.

If folks are more comfortable with RespondWith than Return, that's fine by 
me.


> So the request would be something like:
>
> <RegisterRequest>
> 	...
> 	<RespondWith>X509Cert</RespondWith>
> 	<RespondWith>PrivateKey</RespondWith>
> 	<RespondWith>PGPKey</RespondWith>
> </RegisterRequest>

I'd want the namespaces though: 

 <RegisterRequest
    xmlns:xenc='http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#'
    xmlns:ds='http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#'>
  	<RespondWith>ds:KeyName</RespondWith>
 	<RespondWith>xenc:EncryptedKey</RespondWith>
 </RegisterRequest>

When you process this bit, you should replace the prefix with the namespace 
and operate over the proper QName [1].

(And what does the "Register" part of the RegisterRequeset indicate? That 
might confuse folks with registering/submitting a key with a service.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#NT-QName

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 15:08:32 UTC

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