RE: Requirements & F2F minutes update

I think that is appropriate wording for the now.  Though, I expect we
will want to revisit this wording before we reach Last Call status.

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:hirsch@fjhirsch.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 5:57 PM
To: Blair Dillaway
Cc: Yassir Elley; Shivaram Mysore; www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: Re: Requirements & F2F minutes update


is this the idea:

a. The specification MUST provide a binding to XML Protocol, including 
both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2.

b. Every XKMS service MUST implement XML Protocol as defined in SOAP 1.1

and SHOULD implement SOAP 1.2 when standardised."

Blair Dillaway wrote:
> I support adding a SOAP 1.2 binding to the spec given that it appears 
> to further along in the W3C process than the XKMS spec.  However, 
> since the SOAP 1.2 spec has not yet reached last call status, much 
> less candidate recommendation status, I believe it is premature to 
> include language along the lines of "Every XKMS service MUST implement

> XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2)".
> 
> The only firm specification is SOAP 1.1 and it is the only SOAP 
> specification for which there are multiple deployed implementations. 
> So, I believe we must continue specifying a SOAP 1.1 binding and this 
> binding is the only one we can presently require for implementors.
> 
> I'm open to revisiting the question of whether implementors must 
> support SOAP 1.2 should that specification reach CR status prior to 
> the XKMS WG completing our work.
> 
> Blair
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:hirsch@fjhirsch.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:47 PM
> To: Yassir Elley
> Cc: Shivaram Mysore; www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Requirements & F2F minutes update
> 
> 
> I thought we decided that 1.2 was required but that 1.1 was as well 
> due
> to the need to interoperate with existing implementations. I heard us 
> say that the impact of requiring both would be minimal.
> 
> If we change the requirements to only require 1.2 shall we also add 
> the
> wording that "servers SHOULD also support 1.1"?
> 
> Thanks for the additional comments
> 
> < Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> 
> Yassir Elley wrote:
> 
>>Frederick and Mike have done a great job with the Requirements
>>document. Thanks!
>>
>>I do have a few comments on the May 2002 Draft.
>>
>>2.1.4
>>We agreed at the meeting that the normative reference will be to SOAP
>>1.2, not SOAP 1.1. Suggested wording: "The specification MUST provide 
>>a binding to XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2) [<link to XML
>>Protocol>] [List(Blair Dillaway, Yassir Elley)]. The XKMSspecification
> 
> 
>>Protocol>is required to
>>profile XML Protocol for interoperability, including use of document
>>literal including."
>>
>>2.1.5
>>We agreed at the meeting that the normative reference will be to SOAP
>>1.2, not SOAP 1.1. Suggested wording: "Every XKMS service MUST 
>>implement XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2)"
>>
>>2.2.4
>>A space is needed between or and payload. Suggested wording: "...,
>>either transport security or payload protection."
>>
>>2.4.11
>>I think the words "Protocol schedule" are missing here. Suggested
>>wording: "... XML Protocol bindings may be published as a separate 
>>document from the specification to avoid dependencies on the XML 
>>Protocol schedule. ..."
>>
>>2.5.4
>>I am not sure the term "PKIX" is relevant here. "X.509" is probably
>>adequate. Also, XML DSIG refers to it as X509Certificate, not 
>>X509Cert. Suggested wording: "The X509Certificate KeyInfo format MUST 
>>be supported by a trust server if the service claims interoperability 
>>with X.509."
>>
>>Also, neither X509Chain nor OCSP are defined in the XML Signature
>>spec. Suggested wording: "X509Chain and OCSP MUST be defined in the 
>>XKMS specifications." and probably remove the following sentence, or 
>>change it to "X509CRL is defined in the XML Signature recommendation."
>>
>>3 Out of Scope
>>Please add my name as the source for item 18. i.e. add "[List (Yassir
>>Elley)]"
>>
>>-Yassir.
>>
>>Shivaram Mysore wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>The Minutes [1] for F2F meeting held on 23 April have been uploaded 
>>>on
>>
> 
>>>to the site.  Please send in your comments/corrections to the list.
>>>Also please take a look at your AI and send resolutions to the list.
>>>
>>>Thanks to Merlin Hughes and Glenn Fink for the excellent notes.
>>>
>>>Also, the new version of Requirements [2] have been uploaded to the
>>>website. Please send in your comments to the list.  Thanks to 
>>>Frederick Hirsch and Mike Just for the excellent work.
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Minutes/20020423-f2f2-draft-minutes.html
>>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms-req.html
>>>
>>>/Shivaram
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
_
>>>_________
>>>Shivaram H. Mysore <shivaram.mysore@sun.com>
>>>
>>>Software Engineer                               Co-Chair, W3C's XKMS
>>
> WG
> 
>>>Java Card Engineering
>>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS
> 
>>>JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc.
>>>
>>>Direct: (408)276-7524
>>>Fax:    (408)276-7608
>>>
>>>http://java.sun.com/people/shivaram  (Internal: http://mysore.sfbay/)
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
_
>>>_________
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 12:11:31 UTC