W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > November 2002

RE: [wss] Issue on WS-Security and WSDL definitions

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:48:41 -0500
To: "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <wss@lists.oasis-open.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004501c28fe3$22ec12c0$1a8b8640@beasys.com>

Agreed that the generic service qualities aren't done.  I'm sure some folks
are working on this, cppa is an interesting option...  While a framework
might be nice, it doesn't exist yet.  It's clear that defining WSDL
extensions for WS-Security in the absence of a generic framework is possible
and would be very useful for interop.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: wss@lists.oasis-open.org; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [wss] Issue on WS-Security and WSDL definitions
> > Apologies for my delay, it's been a crazy few weeks of meetings.
> :)
> So if I understand you, then, WSDL really has nothing (yet)
> to do with
> how an application might specify it's required "quality of
> protection."
>   I agree that it's an issue, but then you certainly go down a very
> steep slope, since you want to be able to identify known
> trust anchors, etc.
> I suggest we note that use is service specific and leave such
> negotiations out of band for now.  Who knows, maybe ebXML CPP
> will get
> it right and we can use that.
> 	/r$
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 10:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:01 UTC