W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > September 2004

Re: WSDL security

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:27:49 +0600
Message-ID: <0cc201c49038$3f504510$f1404109@LANKABOOK>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <huseyin_davut@hotmail.com>, <www-ws@w3.org>

Why?? You can sign and encrypt it when you're sending it over
SOAP for example. Why do we need something in WSDL itself?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <huseyin_davut@hotmail.com>; <www-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:19 PM
Subject: RE: WSDL security


>
> that's an interesting point. maybe how a WSDL document itself may be
signed
> and/or encrypted should be raised as a Last Call comment to the WSD WG?
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: 01 September 2004 15:57
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: huseyin_davut@hotmail.com; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WSDL security
>
>
> On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 10:52, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > AIUI this falls into an area called "Policy", and such policy
> > assertions may be described in WSDL 1.1/2.0 using an extension
> > mechanism such as WS-SecurityPolicy [1] or possibly directly in the
> > WSDL 2.0 language using "Features and Properties".
>
> Not necessarily. One might want to sign a WSDL document for example or
> encrypt it for security reasons.
>
> Philippe
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 15:28:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:46 GMT