W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Need for new Rec or TR on attaching policy to EPR

From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:57:09 -0400
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Richard Salz" <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A066D13@jeeves.freunds.com>

Maybe they are, but the WS-Addressing WG is not the place IMO for that
to be developed since, beyond other things, I think it exceeds our scope
and our level of understanding or influence to describe potentially
conflicting policies.
I note also that this issue was raised in the WS-Policy WG and closed
with no action.
Thanks
-bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:18 PM
> To: Richard Salz
> Cc: WS-Addressing
> Subject: Re: Need for new Rec or TR on attaching policy to EPR
> 
> 
> I certainly agree with that: dangers and concerns exists and should be
> documented.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Richard Salz wrote:
> > Anish,
> >
> > I'm not saying that they're all not useful and valid things to do
> > (although I admit I can't see why putting a WSDL in an EPR is
> useful), I
> > am just pointing out that there are dangerous, and non-obvious,
> security
> > concerns. Any document that gets written should at least explain
> them.
> >         /r$
> > --
> > STSM
> > Senior Security Architect
> > DataPower SOA Appliances
> >
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 21:57:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:17 GMT