[wss] F2F-Issues 8

This is the file 
currently being passed around on the flash card.

 

-Eric

 

 

Eric 
Gravengaard

Reactivity

617-256-0328 
(mobile)

650-551-7891 
(office)



 

Title: WSS Issues List

	
	
		Face-To-Face Work Items
		
			

				ID
				Type
				Status
				Issue
				Resolution
				Owner(s)
			

			

				3
				Technical 
				Open
				Proposal to Label Tokens to Indicate Their Semantics
				
					
F2F - Open Ronald Monzillo and Anthony Nadalin will send out a proposed set of 
						changes.

				
				Ronald Monzillo
				
			

			

				26
				Technical
				Pending
				Core: What does it mean to process a BinarySecurityToken?
				F2F - Tony/Ron to get with Ron for final wording. 
				Anthony Nadalin, Ronald Monzillo
			

			

				28 
				Technical
				Open
				SAML Binding: Include the use of the URI attribute (on 
                SecurityTokenReference) from the SS TC submission
				
					F2F - Robert, Don, Prateek to provide proposal
				Prateek
			

			

				36
				Technical
				Pending
				In section 10.2.2, why not just specify that the <Created> element type 
					be xsd:dateTime?
				
					
F2F

					
Tony.  TC to review.

				
				TC
			

			

				46
				Technical
				
					
Postponed Pending QoP discussion

				
				WSDL definitions - It seems to me that a stand-alone specification should just 
					define the semantics of its elements.  If an application wants those 
					semantics, then the application WSDL should specify the header as

					being required.
				
					
F2F after QoP discussion

				
				TC
			

			

				47
				Technical
				Pending
				Add example.  Working Draft 3.  Page 21, Section 7.1, lines 644-648, 
					recommends that <wsse:SecurityTokenReference> element should be used as 
					direct children of <ds:KeyInfo> elements to retrieve signing and 
					encryption certificate when using XML Signature and XML Encryption. Although in 
					section 8.4, there is a XML Signature example for using 
					<wsse:SecurityTokenReferences> element within the <ds:signature>'s 
					<ds:KeyInfo> element, there is no examples provided to using 
					SecurityTokenReference element for XML Encryption in section 9. E.g., Section 
					9.2 does have a <wsse:KeyIdentifier> contained within the 
					<xenc:EncryptedKey> element. However, it does not have the 
					<wsse:securityTokenReference> element encapsulating the 
					<wsse:KeyIdentifier> as specified in section 7.3.
				
				
					
F2F

					
Tony to update.. 
					

				
				Zahid Ahmed
			

			

				52
				Technical
				Pending
				The example in section 3.4 (line 278) seems to have been set up to do a 
					reference bywsu:id attribute value, although the reference is done by URI where 
					the value of theURI is the attribute value. Is this the prefered use model? or 
					would we expect a simpleSTR with a wsu:id value as apposed to a Direct 
					reference/URI to be used? The description of key identifiers seems to imply 
					that Direct references are theprefered form of reference, and where they cannot 
					be used a key identifier isrecommended.
				
					
F2F

					
Chris to provide text. 
					

					
Profile document editors to define what key names and key identifier 
                    are.

				
				Ronald Monzillo
				
			

			

				55
				Technical
				Pending
				Is it really appropriate to endorse a claim via encryption? Perhaps line 209 in 
					3.1

					should be changed to read: "that is digitally signed by the authority."

					

					Editorial - line 362 in 4.2, spell out "Post-Schema Validation InfoSet". I 
					guess this last paragraph says that for non-schema aware processors, support 
					for wsu:Id is optional but recommended? Wouldn't it be better to require 
					support regardless of implementation?
				
					
F2F - Chris/Fredrick to work  to with Tony to improve language over 
						encryption.

				
				Frederick Hirsch
			

			

				56
				Technical
				Pending
				Create a wsu Appendix
				
					
F2F - Create new Appendix that provides explanation.

				
				Robert Philpott
			

			

				59
				Technical
				Open
				Various editorial comments on XrML binding
				
					
F2F - G to review with Thomas. 

				
				Thomas DeMartini
			

			

				60
				Technical
				Open
				Proposal for processing rules.  
				
					
F2F - G to review with Thomas.

				
				Thomas DeMartini
			

			

				61
				Technical
				Open
				Updated to section 8.
				
					
F2F - Frederick to review with Tony in the afternoon. 

				
				Frederick Hirsch