W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > June 2005

Issue + Proposal (Section 3.2.3)

From: Matt Long <mlong@mvsquared.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:49:53 -0000
To: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-Id: <200506021449126.SM00988@UebiMiau>

Issue, Proposal, and Justification for Section 3.2.3

Issue: Section 3.2.3
- Use of terms strings is semantically incorrect.
- More RFC[2119] terminology needed for clarity.
- More clarity needed with respect to which elements encode <RespondWith>
- Faults conditions not specified.

Proposed Text
[102] The <RespondWith> element encoded in a request specifies one or more
URI values that SHOULD resolve to data elements provided in either the
[XML-SIG] <ds:KeyInfo> element or private key information defined in the
section Cryptographic Algorithm Specific Parameters below.  The
<RespondWith> element MUST be encoded in requests of type LocateRequest,
ValidateRequest, RegisterRequest, ReissueRequest, RevokeRequest,
RecoverRequest.  If the receiver does not support any of the <RespondWith> 
element URI values sent in the request or the specified request is not
encoded with <RespondWith> the receiver SHOULD fault with either  [XKMS
Bindings 3.4.1] (5) or [XKMS Bindings 3.4.2] (5).  The XML Signature
elements are described here for convenience. The normative reference is the
specification [XML-SIG].

- Eliminates the term 'strings' where URI is required.
- Explicity states which request types encoded <RespondWith>
- Disambiguates the element's value as the identifier.
- Makes normative the expected response of sending 'all' unresolvable URI
- Makes normative the expected response of not encoding <RespondWith> with
required request types.
- Semantic modification clarifies ambiguities in schema.

Matt Long
MV Squared Technologies

Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 18:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:44 UTC