Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 20:29:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3E8B2C26.4010104@jeckle.de>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 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. Ok, that makes sense to me. > 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. Good point. Honestly, looking the first time at the diagram I was also wondering why "WS-Security" (the Spec!) was mentioned. I think dropping the WS prefix makes it more readable and less confusing. Mario -- Prof. Mario Jeckle University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology URL: http://www.jeckle.de MailTo:mario@jeckle.de MailTo:jeckle@fh-furtwangen.de My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pgp
(image/png attachment: WSAStackDiagram.png)