RE: [wss] X.509 - Issues for next meeting

["DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

That sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Thomas.

--

On 1. I think we are in agreement that there should be some form of
versioning mechanism. I believe that the discussion should consider the
following issues separately.

A - The version of the X.509 token - X509v3, X509v4 whatever
B - The version of the token profile wsse-v1 v2 - whatever

The constraints to bear in mind here are when do we want to break
backwards
compatibility? For me the only reason for changing an identifier is to
explicitly break compatibility.

I think that the case B is best delt with through the URI prefix
mechanism.

I think A is best dealt with by the QName stem, so we could have
wsse:X509v3
as a QName.