W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > November 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security (Gui delines and Primer)

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:13:17 -0500
Message-Id: <D2BBFD53-6A3E-47EA-9B04-D16EE2C80EC3@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ext William Henry <william.henry@iona.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org
To: ext Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>

Yes, but that doesn't correct the assertion ambiguity/confusion.

By the way, I think Daniel's proposal on day 3 of the F2F should take  
care of the immediate concerns, if I understood it correctly from the  
minutes.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Nov 13, 2006, at 2:18 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Could the client indicate it wants to receive a MTOM message using  
> the HTTP
> Accept: multipart/related;type="application/xop+xml", even though  
> it does
> not send a multipart (MTOM/XOP) encoded message?	
>
> Regards,
> Prasad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: ext William Henry
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security
> (Guidelines and Primer)
>
>
> I'm not convinced those assumptions are correct.
>
> Why couldn't the first message not need an attachment and not bother
> sending a multipart message with only one part, yet the response need
> an attachment and multipart for rational reasons?
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:22 PM, ext William Henry wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Frederick,
>>
>> I think it's pretty obvious that if a requester sends a non-MTOM
>> request it must be assumed that they are using the alternative -
>> presumably whatever binding is specified in the binding. Then all
>> exchanges between requester and provider will be with that
>> alternative. If the requester uses MTOM then it is assumed that
>> exchanges will be with the MTOM alternative.
>>
>> I assume this is the same with security assertions two. Once using
>> an alternative it is assumed that it will be used on all exchanges
>> between that requester and provider.
>>
>> Regards,
>> William
>>
>
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 22:10:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT