W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Proposed resolution of issue 101: relationship between headerand body blocks

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:35:50 +0100 (CET)
To: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112042031090.11931-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 James,
 This has been asked a couple times before, and the answer is:
 SOAP-SEC digital signature does not use the SOAP Encoding
referencing mechanism (AFAICS it uses the attribute URI instead
of href, for example), so it is not bound by the SOAP Encoding
referencing rules.
 Anyway, the proposal to disallow references between
serialization trees was not accepted, we are trying to clarify
behavior when encountering undereferencable links instead.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, James M Snell wrote:

 > Um... question... if the header block cannot reference the body block, how
 > in the world are we going to put digital signatures of the body content
 > into the header (see the SOAP-SEC digital signature note [1])?  How are we
 > going to allow encrypted session keys used to encrypt the body to be
 > carried within the header?  How in the world would we be able to do things
 > like a manifest header if needed? Potentially significant problems there
 > if a header cannot reference body content and vice versa.
 >
 > [1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-dsig/
 >
 > - James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
 >     Web services architecture and strategy
 >     Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
 >     544.9035 TIE line
 >     559.587.1233 Office
 >     919.486.0077 Voice Mail
 >     jasnell@us.ibm.com
 > =================================================================
 > Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous.  Do not be terrified,
 >
 > do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you
 > go.
 > - Joshua 1:9
 >
 > Sent by:        xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
 > To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > cc:
 > Subject:        Re: Proposed resolution of issue 101: relationship between headerand body
 > blocks
 >
 >
 >
 > Jean-Jacques wrote:
 > >So what seems to be on the plate right now is:
 > >* to reinforce the distinction between body and header (i101)
 > >* to disallow references from body to header (i170)
 > >* to allow only one body block per message
 > >This gives the picture of a very narrowedly corseted protocol,
 > >especially when contrasted with a generic XML document, where the
 > >flow of blocks is contrainted only by schemas at design time. Are we
 > >not being too restrictive with ourselves? Shouldn't we be more open
 > >in the core protocol, and defer specialisation to niches?
 > >Comments?
 > >Jean-Jacques.
 >
 > I do not believe the current proposal (i101) would disallow
 > multiple children under *the* body block.  Just like soap 1.1
 > there is just one XML element named "body" but there could be
 > multiple children under it - each one could be a separate
 > and independent block (ie. boxcarring), but how that is processed
 > would be outside the scope of the soap 1.2 spec.
 >
 > -Dug
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 14:35:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC