W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Serving static responses

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:52:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A310FF1E@vhqpostal6.verisign.com>
To: "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
As a minimum RequestID becomes optional. Otherwise RequestID is in the
context that is signed and so the response has to be dynamic - which is
not suprising since that it the whole point of RequestID

If RequestID is made optional then ID could also be made optional on the
request since it has no function on an unauthenticated request other
than to be matched in RequestID.

The alternative proposal made was that a service offering sttic
responses specify what the ID value in the request be. This is exactly
the type of gross hack that we don't want.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:54 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
> Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Serving static responses
> On Monday 03 February 2003 13:05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > 1) A service can only return static data if the client 
> signals it does
> > not require the request/response binding.
> >
> > 2) This would be an extra item in ResponseMechanism
> >
> > 3) When WSDL becomes real we have a mechanism for stating that this
> > service offers this type of response...
> I missed the consequent though. This requires no change to 
> the specification 
> then?

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 12:52:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:23 UTC