W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Discussion topic for tomorrow's call

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:33:11 +0200
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Cc: "Jeckle, Mario" <mario@jeckle.de>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030402153311.GI11219@w3.org>

* Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com> [2003-04-02 10:01-0500]
> Regarding security, it was positioned as an "orthogonal" (maybe not exactly the right term) concept, meaning it applies to all layers, as does management.
> 
> I am not sure it is helpful to additionally list it in any of the layers since the right hand security box is intended to imply that security applies to all layers.  This would have to be explained in accompanying text.

I agree. I don't think that we should hint that it is more important
in one particular area since security needs to be applied everywhere
and attacks happen where the security is the weakest, basically where
it won't be mentioned. So mentioning it only in some places is wrong
IMO, and mentioning it everywhere will clutter the diagram.

I too like the diagram. We will need another diagram for the top box
to explain how everything fits together (e.g. SOAP MEP vs.
choreography description, etc).

One comment though: I would drop all the WS prefixes since:
- we are talking about Web services indeed.
- the existence of specifications with resembling names is confusing;
  for example, one might wonder if WS Security on the right
  WS-Security or something else. I think that this particular diagram
  should stay fairly abstract.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 10:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT