<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Theresa,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for sending this out and thanks Markus for writing it up. The erratum looks good to me and is in line with the 'single URL' for a service approach. There's one point in there that I'd like to highlight for the GWS members concerning the advertisement of an interface that allows anonymous access. The updated version of the comment for the securityMethod element reads:<br><br> "A missing securityMethod child indicates an interface usable without authentication. In the presence of at least one securityMethod element, services indicate the possibility of unauthenticated access using an empty securityMethod element (i.e., one without standardID)".</div><div><br></div><div>So, interfaces with both anonymous and authenticated access will have a set of securityMethod elements with one empty one. For example:</div><div><br></div><div><securityMethod /><br></div><div><securityMethod standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/sso#cookie">ivoa.net/sso#cookie</a>" /></div><div><securityMethod standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate">ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate</a>" /></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Brian<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:58 AM Theresa Dower <<a href="mailto:dower@stsci.edu">dower@stsci.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="gmail-m_1954245740088283728divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr">
<p>Registry et al,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There are several proposed Registry-related errata that I would like to be finalized soon if possible. One relates to capabilities and interfaces and therefore VOSI (and therefore DAL and GWS).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This change is to VOResource 1.1, which re-enables multiple security methods per interface. This is merely a return to VOResource 1.0 expectations and thus potentially small enough to do in the errata process and is needed for RegTAP 1.1 and potentially
other existing client issues.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VOResource-1_1-Erratum-1" class="gmail-m_1954245740088283728OWAAutoLink" id="gmail-m_1954245740088283728LPlnk332037" target="_blank">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VOResource-1_1-Erratum-1</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If anyone sees any egregious problems with this, please respond on list so we can resolve things before the interop?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks so much,</p>
<p>--Theresa</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>