Re: Requirements updated

OK, I'm fine with keeping "PKIX X.509" (although elsewhere we just use X.509).

What about the second part of my comment?

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."

Thanks,
Yassir.

Frederick Hirsch wrote:

> It wasn't overlooked. There was some discussion earlier where people
> wanted the term included, so we kept it, as it doesn't seem harmful.
>
> Yassir Elley wrote:
> > Looks like it's getting there!
> >
> > By the way, one of my minor comments was not addressed.
> > I assume this was just an oversight.
> >
> > 2.5.4
> > I am not sure the term "PKIX" is relevant here. "X.509" is probably adequate.
> > 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."
> >
> > -Yassir.
> >
> > Shivaram Mysore wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Thanks to excellent responsiveness from Frederick and Mike, we have another
> >>version of Requirements document [1] with changes.  This can be located under
> >>"editors copy" section of Requirements.
> >>
> >>The changes are:
> >>Changed 2.2.9 from:
> >>"The specification MUST allow use of user-generated pass phrases as a
> >>means of proving ownership of a key's previously registered key binding."
> >>
> >>to
> >>"The specification MUST allow use of user-generated pass phrases as a
> >>means of authenticating requests in lieu of access to a valid private key."
> >>
> >>It also fixes a number of typos and minor changes as mentioned in the
> >>Shivaram email response, in response to Yassir's message and from a
> >>spell check. It adds Yassir as the source for constrained devices being
> >>out of scope (as he requested. does that make sense given the list & F2F
> >>discusson?).
> >>
> >>The wording for the two requirements related to SOAP versions is yet to be
> >>revised.
> >>
> >>[1] 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 Monday, 13 May 2002 11:50:00 UTC