Ron,
These are carryover sentences regarding the certificate extensions. I left
them in only because they've been in every other interop document that I've
seen from the group.
We can definitely kill them if nobody has objections.
Blake
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Monzillo [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 10:37 AM
To: Blake Dournaee
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wss] SwA Interop 1 Scenarios
Blake,
I promised to send you a couple of line numbers regarding some
potential issues in the SwA interop doc.
I took a closer look, and I noticed that the wsse:reference(s) (i.e.
#myEncCert)
that I had had trouble matching up with a corresponding security token,
do indeed match up.
In looking back over the doc, I recalled pausing over the following two
sentences (and
variants of same which occur throughout the doc). I am not sure what
effect these
sentences are expected to have. Maybe they are important, but they seem
not to say anything sufficiently definitive, or in other words that
could serve to reduce
the potential variability in the certificates used.
"The certificate SHOULD NOT have a KeyUsage
extension. If it does contain a KeyUsage extension, it SHOULD include
the values of 378
keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment. 379"
Ron
Blake Dournaee wrote:
>All,
>
>Here is the first cut at the interop scenarios document for SwA.
>
>Blake Dournaee
>Senior Security Architect
>Sarvega, Inc.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This body part will be downloaded on demand.
>
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
.
