Subject: [KEYPROV] [issue1] Change element names to reflect keyprov and request / response style

From: Andrea Doherty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:04:36 +0000

Andrea Doherty <[email-masked]> added the comment:

I agree with Hannes.  We have already seen requirements for implementations 
that can rely on HTTP binding for contexts that do not include web services.

_________________________________________________________
KEYPROV Roundup Issue Tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.tschofenig.priv.at:8080/keyprov/issue1>
_________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

---

From: "Pei, Mingliang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:24:11 -0700

Web service is cited as one of the main cases for implementation, which
I surely didn't exclude other binding scenarios.

Even with HTTP binding or other transport layer protocols, would it be
better to use a request and response flavor in names that indicate the
protocol context? Key provisioning is a more specific protocol than a
general secure transport protocol such as SSL. The general naming
ClientHello and ServerHello sound to me less explicit than using
provisioning naming, for example, KeyProvClientRequest, as given in the
example.

- Ming

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Doherty [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:05 AM
To: [email-masked]; Pei, Mingliang
Subject: [issue1] Change element names to reflect keyprov and request /
response style

I agree with Hannes.  We have already seen requirements for
implementations that can rely on HTTP binding for contexts that do not
include web services.