RE: Requirements updated

Hi Yassir,

The second part of your comment will be incorporated into the next update to
the editor's copy of the requirements.

Cheers,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Yassir Elley [mailto:yassir.elley@sun.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Shivaram Mysore; www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: 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/)
>
>>__________________________________________________________________________
_____
> >
> >
> >