Re: The future of SACRED

Hi Dale,

> FWIW, I also think it might help if the rationale behind recent changes that
> appear to be driven by parallel work in W3's XKMS area were more fully explained
> to the group.  Without a little more background information, it may be difficult
> for many/most to provide meaningful comments.

Basically, if we're using xml to define sacred data structures then it
seems sensible to try to be compatible with other xml-based security
work. The most relevant such thing is xkms, but xmldsig and xml encryption 
and saml are also related efforts. In fact, our choice of beep as 
transport isn't in-line with xkms or saml, since they're using soap/http, 
(but that was the concensus here), so its really only the sacred schema 
that could be used with xkms or saml.

If we weren't using xml for our payloads, there'd be no reason to think 
about xkms at all. If that (not using xml) were the concensus, that'd be 
fine by me.

Hope that helps,
Stephen.

PS: I should probably point out that I'm also slated to co-chair the
in-formation w3c xkms working group (which is neither a conflict of 
interest, nor a secret:-)



-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:[email protected]
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com