W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

RE: [DR305] Xerox vote "no" (D) on authentication, etc.

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:41:06 -0800
Message-ID: <004201c053d9$e960ae90$f1001d12@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Anderson, William L" <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I don't think anybody is suggesting that it should be dealt with as part
of XML protocol (i.e. be defined by this WG). However, there are many
reasons why people might want to provide XP modules that describe
authentication etc. - to name a few:

* people can obtain a much finer control within the XP message
  than for security outside which can only apply to the message
  as a whole.

* people might not want to rely on mechanisms defined for 
  specific protocol bindings

* people might want to use intermediaries to perform specific
  tasks which then have to be described in terms of the XP

I have tried to illustrate the relationship between XP and XP modules in:



> Authentication, encryption, and reliable delivery are already 
> addressed
> at the level of protocols like HTTP and SMTP; addressing them as part
> of XP would seem like duplication of effort.  Sessions and 
> transactions
> are complex and we believe should not be addressed by XP for the time
> being.
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 11:42:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC