Re: Semantic Nit -2

Hi Stephen -

> - For the implementers - what does your code do if you
>  have no good value to include in the response element?

RespondWith indicates what the client would prefer to see in the
*KeyBinding.  The *KeyBinding is only present in the result, if the
request succeded.

My interop configuration is:
If the result contains a *KeyBinding I always include a ds:KeyValue,
whether or not it was requested in a RespondWith - XKMS is key centric
so I think this makes sense. In addition I include, as far as is
possble, whatever artefacts are indicated by the RespondWith's.

Regards
Tommy

On 5/23/05, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> Matt,
> 
> I think that this is ok, but want to check that the MAY
> is correct here.
> 
> I guess, (without checking) that if a client includes
> a RespondWith that a server SHOULD include a corresponding
> element in the response, at least if it has a meaningful
> value to place in the element. However, I could buy an
> argument that MAY is right, since a server might want to
> ignore such a value for some policy reason.
> 
> So, two follow-ups:
> 
> - Can anyone save me the trouble of checking through the
>    spec to verify whether MAY or SHOULD is right here?
> - For the implementers - what does your code do if you
>    have no good value to include in the response element?
>    (E.g. Do you omit the element entirely, or include the
>    element, but without anything inside?)
> 
> And lastly, this seems to be a case where we're adding
> a new potentially testable assertion. I think that that
> means that we just need to be careful to note that
> the spec and test-spec get slightly out of whack at
> the point  where we include this change. I'm not
> bothered that this happens, btw, since the test-spec
> was for the PR transition which has happened already.
> (At least I hope that that's ok according to the
> w3c-process rules of the road;-)
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> Matt Long wrote:
> 
> > Issue: Section 3.2.3 [1]
> >  - Use of terms strings is semantically incorrect.
> > -  More RFC[2119] terminology needed for clarity.
> >
> > Section 3.2.3 [102] states:
> > "[102]The <RespondWith> element in the request specifies one or more
> > strings included in the request that specify data elements to be
> > provided in the <ds:Keyinfo> element of the response. Each string is a
> > single identifier corresponding to a sub-element of the XML Signature
> > Specification [XML-SIG]
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2/#XML-SIG#XML-SIG><ds:Keyinfo> element  or
> > the private key information defined in  the section Cryptographic
> > Algorithm Specific Parameters
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2/#privatekeyparameters#privatekeyparameters>
> > below. The XML Signature elements are described here for convenience.
> > The normative reference is the specification [XML-SIG]."
> >
> > Purposed Text:
> > [102]The <RespondWith> element allows the sender of a request to specify
> > which data elements MAY be provided in the <ds:KeyInfo> element in the
> > response.   One or more <RespondWith> elements MAY be included in a
> > request where each <RespondWith> element URI value is an identifier than
> > corresponds to either a sub-element of the XML Signature Specification
> > [XML-SIG] <ds:KeyInfo> or the private key information defined in section
> > Cryptographic Algorithm Specific Parameters below.  The XML Signature
> > elements are described here for convenience.  The normative reference is
> > the specification [XML-SIG].
> >
> > Justification:
> > (1)Eliminates the term 'strings' where URI is required.
> > (2)Specifies 'MAY' for <ds:KeyInfo> sub-element response items, which is
> > accurate.
> > (3)Disambiguates the element's value as the identifier.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Long
> > MV Squared Technologies
> > mlong@mvsquared.net
> > 901-848-2640
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2
> 
>

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 22:50:36 UTC