[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ekmi] My slip-up and an update
We could do this. Under this scheme, there would be three kinds of SKSML messages (actually 5, but I'm ignoring the KeyCachePolicy messages for the discussion): 1) NewSymkeyRequest (for new symmetric keys) 2) SymkeyRequest (for existing symmetric keys) 3) SymkeyResponse Under the older scheme, there would be 2 kinds of messages: 1) SymkeyRequest (for new and existing symmetric keys) 2) SymkeyResponse Personally speaking - and being a bit of a minimalist - I'd prefer to stay with the 2-message protocol. Less work on the spec but no change on the implementation - the server code would still have to branch its code based on the request no matter which way the message came. What do you think? Arshad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com> To: "Arshad Noor" <arshad.noor@strongauth.com> Cc: "ekmi" <ekmi@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:27:27 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: [ekmi] My slip-up and an update Very interesting that it took me close to a month to answer this. :( I was referring to the usage of GKID to indicate that the request is for a new symmetric key. Why not have an explicit element such as ekmi:NewSymKeyRequest Arshad Noor wrote: > I will expand the abbreviations to reflect the full and > meaningful names, Anil. However, I don't recall the "new > XML element to obtain the symmetric key". Can you refresh > my memory on that? Thanks. > > Arshad > > Anil Saldhana wrote: >> Arshad, >> additionally as discussed at IDTrust08, I hope we can get the >> expansion of the abbreviated xml element names and a new xml element >> (to obtain sym key) into the drafts. >> >> Regards, >> Anil >> >> Arshad Noor wrote: >>> Thank you, Allen. I will send out sections of the >>> document as it gets ready rather than wait till the >>> end. >>> >>> Hope your recovery goes well. >>> >>> Arshad >>> >>> Allen wrote: >>>> Hi Arshad, >>>> >>>> I'll be happy to be editor for this. I'm currently recovering from a >>>> minor surgery so I have the time. >>>> >>>> Allen >>>> >>>> Arshad Noor wrote: >>>>> Thank you, Mike. Any volunteers for Editor? I'm not sure the >>>>> author can serve as Editor too. >>>>> >>>>> Arshad >>>>> >>>>> Mike Nelson wrote: >>>>>> Arshad, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll be glad to contribute to the review of formal specification >>>>>> document >>>>>> for SKSML. The checklist seems fairly straightforward. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/22/08 3:06 PM, "Arshad Noor" <arshad.noor@strongauth.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) I received some information from Mary McRae that the TC needs >>>>>>> to write a formal Specification document for SKSML - the XSD >>>>>>> isn't sufficient :-(. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am happy to start the writing work on this, but I will need >>>>>>> some support for a formal Editor and some Reviewers. May I >>>>>>> request some volunteers from interested TC members? There is >>>>>>> a checklist of what needs to be done at this URL: >>>>>>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/QAChecklist.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My goal is to try to get a Spec created in time for a May or >>>>>>> June TC vote. >>>>>>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]