Re: NotBoundAuthentication

Tommy, Guillermo,

Not sure if the KeyName would be best there, since I'd rather
keep the key and auth-id names separate, but in any case,
there's Tommy's b64 idea or how about ""
(like people use to filter emails). I could also imagine using
(whatever's the official term for) a CGI parameter in the URI
itself ("").

So, I'd say we're ok not to change the schema for this one -
there's enough flexibility for what is probably a corner case.


Guillermo Álvaro Rey wrote:

> El lun, 06-12-2004 a las 00:14, Tommy Lindberg escribió:
>>/How is the shared secret "holder" in an NotBoundAuthentication intended to be
> Hi Tommy,
> I would say that the key name could be specified in the KeyInfo element 
> in the PrototypeKeyBinding, avoiding the need for a change in the schema 
> regarding NotBoundAuthentication.
> Regards,
> - -Guillermo
>>/Apart from altering the schema (adding a "Name" attribute) the only
>>reasonable option seems to be, to combine these two pieces of
>>information and include their base64 encoding in the Value attribute.
>>For example, a protocol defined out of scope to XKMS and identified by the URI
>>urn:example-protocol:username-password specifies that the Value
>>attribute carries
>>a username/password pair separated by a ':'  would take the form of
>>the following
>>instance fragment
>>    Protocol="urn:example-protocol:username-password"
>>    Value="YWxpY2U6c2VjcmV0"/>

Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 13:45:36 UTC