W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Encrytping WS-A headers

From: Abbie Barbir <abbieb@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:43:52 -0500
Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE07C26311@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
To: "Michael McIntosh" <mikemci@us.ibm.com>, "Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

 
See inline..

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
McIntosh
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:27 PM
To: Arun Gupta
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Encrytping WS-A headers


public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 02/23/2006 05:16:48 PM:

> 
> Section 7.0 [1] of SOAP Binding says:
> 
> -- cut here --
> WS-Addressing message addressing properties serialized as SOAP headers

> (wsa:To, wsa:Action et al.) including those headers present as a 
> result of the [reference parameters] property should be integrity 
> protected as explained in Web Services Addressing 1.0 -
Core[WS-Addressing-Core].
> -- cut here --
> 
> This does not restrict the sender of SOAP message to encrypt WS-A 
> headers. If wsa:To is to be usable for routing then WS-A headers (esp
> wsa:To) must not be encrypted otherwise intermediaries wouldnt be able

> to route it.

It could be that a sender might encrypt the header and allow the routing
intermediary to decrypt it, right?

-----
Yup, actually this way only Trusted intermediaries will know what to do.
Abbie
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 02:44:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT