Hi, Thanks.
>> As for the WS-security, should I leave that reference out then? The draft >> is long enough as it is, so I am not sure I want to expand it further. Or >> should I state the discussion is out of scope for the document? I'd hazard a guess that the current text won't survive the Security Area review, because it doesn't make it clear what is the mandatory security requirement for this specific draft. I think the sentence needs to be restructured so that it's clear what an implementor MUST do. The problem may be a bit deeper. I see several uses of XML Digital Signature and XML Encryption in the text that don't cite [3] and [5]. I would think they need references. If that's all you're taking from WS-Security, it would be better to drop the reference to WS-Security altogether. If there's more, life can get very painful as WS-Security is such a complex model. Incidentally, I thought the reference for XMLDSIG would be RFC3275. Brian On 2008-02-22 02:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Good morning Brian, > > Thank you. I will make the updates later today. I had changed my contact > information in the version 3 that was really just a contact update, but I > went back to my original document for version 4 and must have overlooked > that change. > > As for the WS-security, should I leave that reference out then? The draft > is long enough as it is, so I am not sure I want to expand it further. Or > should I state the discussion is out of scope for the document? > > Yes, it is more accurate to say RID class. We went through many revisions > and it was an extension at one point in time. I'll comb through the > document again for that as well and correct where needed. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:47 PM > To: Moriarty, Kathleen > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gen-ART LC review of draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-02.txt] > > Kathleen, > > Just a few remaining comments: > >> Each of the three listed classes may be the only class included in >> the RID class, hence the option for zero or one. > > Ah, it means zero or one *occurrences*, that wasn't obvious to me. > BTW is 'RID class' what you mean rather than 'RID extension'? > >> 6.3 Authentication of RID Protocol > > I'm still a little puzzled by the mention of WS-Security. > That is such an enormous beast that I don't see how you > can refer to it in passing without any details. > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Didn't you need to update that? > > Thanks > > Brian > > On 2008-02-21 03:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Hello Brian, >> >> I went through your comments and made the necessary changes to the RID >> document yesterday. I submitted the new version last night. >> >> I am attaching the edited txt document you sent with comments. Please let >> me know if there are other adjustments that should be made or if I did not >> address your comments adequately. >> >> Thank you, >> Kathleen >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:02 PM >> To: Moriarty, Kathleen >> Cc: Tim Polk >> Subject: [Fwd: Gen-ART LC review of draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-02.txt] >> >> Kathleen, comments will tend to go to the address in >> the draft ;-) >> >> Please cc any reply to [email protected] >> >> Thanks >> >> Brian >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-02.txt >> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:29:08 +1300 >> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Organization: University of Auckland >> To: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> >> CC: Tim Polk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
