RE: [www-xkms] <none>

The message is in reply to issue #301 [1] that you raised during the XKMS WG
Last 
Call request on behalf of the XML Protocol WG.

The changes you proposed to the specification have been accepted and the
revised version of the specification may be seen at [2], Para 42 & 46-47

At this point the work group believes all concerns raised in issue #301 have
been addressed and that the entire issue is closed, unless we hear
otherwise. (see [3] for additional resolutions)

The XKMS WG would like to thank you for reviewing and commenting on the
draft XKMS specification.

Regards, 
Phillip Hallam-Baker on behalf of the XKMS WG
VeriSign Inc.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003May/0011.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030804/xkms-part-1.html
    http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030804/xkms-part-2.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Aug/0005.html


> The following comments are in response to the XKMS WG Last 
> Call request to
> the XML Protocol WG.
> 
> 1. Section 3 SOAP Binding
> para [41] The paragraph includes the sentences:
> 
> "Use of SOAP 1.1 is REQUIRED by implementers in the near term for
> compatibility with existing tools
> and infrastructures. Use of SOAP 1.2 is Recommended."
> 
> The XKMS requirements document includes the requirement that :
> 
>    XKMS services MUST implement SOAP 1.2 once that specification has
>    achieved Candidate Recommendation status.
> 
> SOAP 1.2 has now reached Proposed Recommendation status so we 
> ask the XKMS
> WG to state that the use of SOAP 1.2 is REQUIRED by implementers. In
> addition, SOAP 1.1 is W3C Note which has an informal status. The XKMS
> specification should reflect this. We suggest the sentences above be
> changed to:
> 
> "Use of SOAP 1.2 is REQUIRED by implementers of this 
> specification. For
> near term compatibility with existing tools and 
> infrastructure, SOAP 1.1
> MAY be used"
> 
> 2. Section 3.1.1 SOAP 1.2 Binding
> The example XKMS Request and Response messages in paras [45] 
> and [46] are
> syntactically incorrect - there is no termination for the env:Header
> element. Similar errors exist in the examples in paras [54] and [55].
> 
> Apart from this, we have no further comments.
> 
> John
> 
> Emerging ebusiness Industry Architecture ,
> XML Technology and Messaging,
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
> Winchester, SO21 2JN
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 14:15:31 UTC