W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:09:30 -0500 (EST)
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0412162108130.11596-100000@smtp.datapower.com>

> Or whether it makes sense to say that omission of a <wsa:To> is
> equivalent to including one with the well know 'anonymous' URI as its
> value.

How about the empty element, <was:To/>?  It's a lot less confusing to see
a signed empty element then it is to recognize that an added element
isn't covered by the appropriate signature.
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 02:09:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC