Re: [wss] Issue 250: ValueType --> TokenType+ReferenceType?

[Ron Monzillo <Ronald.Monzillo@Sun.COM>]

DeMartini, Thomas wrote:

>Are we working on 1.1 or 10.1?
>
>Do you really thing we should make these changes *now*?  Shouldn't we
>wait until there is a clear problem with what we have before we make
>such big changes?  Who can say we're not going to have new problems if
>we make such changes?  Even if we don't have any new problems and we're
>just shuffling things around, why put ourselves through the changes?
>It's just not obvious to me we'll be sooo much better off afterwards.
>
The proposal for introducing the #X509ThumbprintSHA1 KID that occurs in 
V1.1 of the X509
Token Profile, dated November 8th, is an example of the introduction of 
a new KID valuetype for
an existing token type.

Also when a <ds:X509IssuerSerial> element is used within an STR to 
reference a certificate,
neither the "ValueType" of the referenced token or of the reference is 
specified.

I think a change can be made that does not introduce new problems, and 
that affords a
an opportunity to consistently specify the type of the referenced token 
for all of the various
reference forms.

Ron

>&Thomas.
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>