Subject: Re: XML ACs Was Re: Objections to advancing the attribute certificate authentication draft

From: "David P. Kemp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:10:02 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
> 
> Hi,
> Not that I believe that ACs have any value but an XML solution would be simlar
> to BizTalk.  I.e. a generic header format holding an arbitrary XML 
shema-defined
> document holding the actual attributes.  In that way you achieve the 
flexibility to let every
> type of digital relationship define a unique (and from other definitions 
clearly
> separable) set of attributes and corresponding interpretation.  I.e. instead 
of
> the misery we have today trying to find out where e-mail addresses in PKCs are
> stored, you either a priori know a certain attribute schema or you just reject 
it. 
> An AC XML draft could though suggest suitable formats for encrypted items etc.
> 
> Anders

 <chuckle>
 
I've heard some good arguments for using XML in various contexts, but
"rigor of schema definition" has never been one of them!

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:51:39 +0200

<snip>

>But there would be still a need to define the semantics of the
>attributes (name space in XML) to make different applications from
>different vendors interoperable. Or did I get you totally wrong?

Well you *could* do that but I think it is the wrong way to go.
An AC XML attribute schema is the application IMO.  You would typically
find that the health-care sector would define their own schemas (with their own
syntax and semantics only limted by XML itself).  And so would every other sector
or single application do.  I.e. IETF should not have to
bother about semantics for attributes. In the same way as Microsoft does not
care how many BizTalk purchase order schemas are created and how they are to
be interpreted.  It is up to every community.

Anders