- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:49:36 -0500
- To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- CC: "'www-xkms@w3.org'" <www-xkms@w3.org>
I agree with > 1. Removal of unnecessary design justification & explanatory material ... > 2. Reorganization of USER/SERVER Auth nonsense. > This needs to be greatly streamlined. > 5. Add in bounds exceeded fault > 6. Use SAML versioning > 8. Use XML Encrypt for encrypting the private key What is #3 Add "UseKeyWith" element? As for #4, add Service URI element: Do you mean to all requests? If so, yes. Should be in reply, too? I dunno. > [I-PayloadAuth] > Require decision on how payload authentication is to be handled, in > particular whether by a SOAP header or a signature within the Request > packet. Put another way: enveloped or detached signatures, right? > [I-PayloadHash] > For establishing correspondence of response to a specific request. Will the hash cover the signature? If so I-PayloadAuth impacts this. > [I-FaultHandling] > We need to address this, how is XP getting on here? What do you want to know? (I'm on the xmlp wg :) > [I-Passphrase] > Needs to become Base64 data at the very least. yes. -- Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com Information Integrity, XML Security
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 15:49:20 UTC