- From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:48:24 +0100
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
> Is an empty ds:KeyInfo even schema valid? An empty KeyInfo is not schema valid. > Secondary question to server implementers: if the request had > contained a KeyValue you'd never heard of, but is otherwise > the same, would you return bob's key? In my case a NoMatch or some such would have been returned. Tommy On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:02:49 +0100, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > Good one guys. Do we need to say somewhere that empty ds:KeyInfo > MUST NOT be put into requests? (Is an empty ds:KeyInfo even > schema valid? Bet we can get disagreement there:-) > > Secondary question to server implementers: if the request had > contained a KeyValue you'd never heard of, but is otherwise > the same, would you return bob's key? (I realise that the > spec is properly silent on this "policy" issue, but just > wondered.) > > Stephen. > > > > Tommy Lindberg wrote: > > > That's it, Yunhao. > > > > Tommy > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:24:42 -0400, Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi Tommy, > >> > >>Thanks for the insider information. I am still getting a failure with out > >>the KeyName. The request message is something like, > >> > >><SOAP-ENV:Envelope > >>xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" > >>xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" > >>xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > >>xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> > >>- <SOAP-ENV:Body> > >>- <xkms:LocateRequest xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#" > >>Id="_ce8734ab-cf09-40f0-813e-aea6aa889015" > >>Service="http://62.77.172.83:4080/xkiss/soap11"> > >> <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:KeyName</xkms:RespondWith> > >> <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:KeyValue</xkms:RespondWith> > >> <xkms:RespondWith>xkms:X509Cert</xkms:RespondWith> > >>- <xkms:QueryKeyBinding xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#" > >>Id="_dd53968f-b75d-4984-bf64-857d4bc23134"> > >> <KeyInfo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" /> > >> <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Signature</xkms:KeyUsage> > >> <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Encryption</xkms:KeyUsage> > >> <xkms:KeyUsage>xkms:Exchange</xkms:KeyUsage> > >> <xkms:UseKeyWith Application="urn:ietf:rfc:2633" > >>Identifier="bob@example.com" /> > >> <xkms:TimeInstant Time="2004-10-12T12:50:09Z" /> > >> </xkms:QueryKeyBinding> > >> </xkms:LocateRequest> > >> </SOAP-ENV:Body> > >> </SOAP-ENV:Envelope> > >> > >>I suspect the empty KeyInfo caused the problem, is it true? > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Yunhao > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Tommy Lindberg" <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com> > >>To: "Yunhao Zhang" <yzhang@sqldata.com> > >>Cc: <www-xkms@w3.org> > >>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:16 AM > >>Subject: Re: Action item > >> > >> > >>>Hi Yunhao - > >>> > >>> > >>>>Yes. I can reconfirm your claim, > >>> > >>>Glad to hear that, thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>>>I got a failure ... > >>> > >>>I checked out your request; if I am not mistaken, you specify a sequence > >> > >>of > >> > >>><KeyInfo><KeyName>Bob</KeyName></KeyInfo>. You don't need to do that. > >>>The Locate operation will work just fine with UseKeyWith alone. > >>> > >>>Regards > >>>Tommy > >>> > >>> > >>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:43:57 -0400, Yunhao Zhang <yzhang@sqldata.com> > >> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>>>A quick note to confirm that I have implemented the asynchronous > >>>>>behaviour required by test case T7 as outlined in the original e-mail > >>>>>below. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Yes. I can reconfirm your claim, although I got a failure for the final > >>>>results, which was caused by my tool for not providing a correct KeyName > >> > >>in > >> > >>>>the request message. BTW, I wonder if we should define the KeyName to be > >>>>used in all the test cases if it is required. So far, each > >> > >>implementation > >> > >>>>requires a different KeyName, and it is hard to automate the tests. > >>>> > >>>>Regards, > >>>> > >>>>Yunhao > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:48:58 UTC