- From: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) <vbp@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:17:54 -0400
- To: "'ksankar@cisco.com'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'Steve Graham'" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'David Snelling'" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "'Jim Webber'" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "'Paul Watson'" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org, public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org, "'Steve Tuecke'" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>
Hi Krishna, > IMHO, it would be better if we address the security interfaces > in this specification, leaving, of course, the > implementations to choose > whatever mechanisms. I differentiate between mechanics and > mechanisms - > we define the mechanics, the platforms do the mechanisms. In > that sense, > these security aspects are NOT orthogonal to the serviceData > mechanics. Can you please expand on this? I am not sure I understand where you draw the line. Could you provide a specific example? Regards, William
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 19:17:59 UTC