- From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:53:26 +0100
- To: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20050120185326.GD1613@inrialpes.fr>
I added this thread as issue 329-tl. -jose On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:22:00PM +0000, Tommy Lindberg wrote: > > > Not sure if the KeyName would be best there, > > I second that. It seems to me that the KeyInfo in the > PrototypeKeyBinding is intended to communicate information to be bound > to the key pair being registered. > > > 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. > > I am of the same opinion. > > > Tommy's b64 idea > I can't take credit for the b64 part - this is a schema requirement > :). My example is deliberatly simplified to illustrate a point - I > imagine you can throw anything in there; some DER, a bit of XML etc. > > I think the prose could be clearer: > - while the schema allows for NotBoundAuthentication be used in any > XKRSS message section 7.1.3 paragraph says that NotBoundAuthentication > is for registration only. > > - section 7.1.5 paragraph [296] makes liberal use of the phrase > "limited use shared secret" ; I don't like the innuendo of that and > suggest that replacing this with simply "authentication data" would be > more appropriate. Sure, using a limited use shared secret even as per > section 8.1 may well be part of the Protocol, but this is specified by > the Protocol and therefore out of scope in this spec.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 18:54:02 UTC