- From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:56:35 +0100
- To: jose.kahan@w3.org
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Hi Jose - > How does it sound if I do the following changes in Figure 3 [p 154]: Looks good to me. To convey the same information it might not hurt to add <Status StatusValue="Valid"> below the ValidateResult (XKMS URI deliberatly left out for "Valid"). > I added it. I am a bit confused. Isn't it also lacking an Id attribute > or something to relate it to the pending request? Also, is > <Result> the element we need to use in the notification? > > From what I know the spec doesn't define how a server notifies the client > that a pending request is processed. That's why I get confused with > <Result>. I believe I commented on this some time ago, but I could be wrong and I am too lazy to check. Like you say, it is at least misleading as the structure of the notification is unspecified in XKMS; for both of the notification methods mentioned in the spec (smtp & http). You could replace it with text similar to "The XKMS service notifies the client about the completion of the request processing using the notification mechanism specified in the <PendingNotification> element in the initial request". > Looking at the table and the use of Receiver and Sender in other cases, ... I used the table in [120] for guidance. The description in the Sender row states "An error occured that was due to the message sent by the sender" which for me provided the closest match. > Thanks! Are these sample message exchanges with your server? Yes, but reformatted with human consumption in mind and with signature's recomputed. Regards Tommy
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 16:56:36 UTC