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
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 -
> -- 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.
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 02:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:13 UTC