Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open Issue 31: synchronous XDS/XCA/XDR and MHD Push #112

Open
lukeaduncan opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Open Issue 31: synchronous XDS/XCA/XDR and MHD Push #112

lukeaduncan opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
open issue Open Issue mentioned in Implementation Guide

Comments

@lukeaduncan
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, only synchronous XDS/XCA/XDR and MHD Push are supported. This scope was limited
for the public-comment deadline. After public comment, we plan to add in asynchronous (WS-A and AS4)
and full MHD. One area that needs work is Digital Certificates to support async end-to-end security
(Not needed for sync that uses TLS).

@lukeaduncan lukeaduncan added the open issue Open Issue mentioned in Implementation Guide label May 2, 2022
@slagesse-epic
Copy link
Member

If certificate information is not needed for synchronous endpoints, why it is needed for asynchronous endpoints?

For existing exchange communities, the security policies are often established outside of the directory, such that it is not necessary to store that information in the directory.

@lukeaduncan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Copied from Issue #64 from @slagesse-epic:

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Regarding Open Issue mCSD_28

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

It is not clear to me why support for asynchronous transactions necessitate the need of carrying certificates on the Endpoint Resource.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Define asynchronous endpoints in the mCSD Endpoint Types Code System.

Priority:

Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
open issue Open Issue mentioned in Implementation Guide
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants