From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [reagle@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:26 PM
To: PATO,JOE (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)
Cc: xkms-ws-submit@w3.org
Subject: Reagle's XKMS Submission

Categories: pato-at


The following comments address "What are your general expectations on the 
final outputs of the workshop?"

If there is support for an activity:

1. Is the goal to quickly advance the XKMS submission through last call and 
candidate REC, or to do the "next version." I advocate taking XKMS, 
identifying issues, prioritizing their resolution, and working quickly to 
meet the exit criteria of Candidate REC).
2. What is the nature of the dependency on (and have to wait for) other WGs 
such as XML query (if the present query prototype method were to be 
replaced) or XMLP?
3. Organizationally, need there be two specifications or WGs for KISS and 
KRSS? I recommend there be one WG with two deliverables that can be worked 
on by different authors/editors/task forces if necessary.
4. With respect to the tiered service model, any semantics above Tier 1 (a 
returned ds:KeyInfo given a query) will invite interesting but potentially 
entangling questions of assertion languages and semantics. While this is 
interesting and important work, I recommend it be divorced from this WG's 
charter and be architecturally orthogonal. Consequently, section 3.3 of the 
Validate service should be extensible, and development of a language should 
be orthogonal (and perhaps in a different namespace). AssertionStatus should 
be part of this "external" specification as well.

--
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/