W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

RE: Draft registration of application/soap+xml

From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:53:10 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01aa01c19a31$f63814b0$180ba8c0@beasys.com>
I laughed, I cried.  XMLE does not encrypt attributes.  I believe actors are
attributes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-encryption-req#sec-Requirements

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: Rich Salz
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft registration of application/soap+xml
>
>
> Rich, I was about to update the draft to incorporate your
> suggestion, but
> had the following thought;
>
> > > That's an interesting point, but the processing model
> doesn't specify
> > > how to route, only how to target.
> >
> >
> > A recipient receiving a message with an encrypted actor and/or
> > mustUnderstand cannot properly send a SOAP "actor" fault
> back, since
> > (obviously) it doesn't know who the actor was. :)  I believe this
> > impacts the processing model.
>
> Should the processing model permit encrypted actors?  Or perhaps more
> precisely, is an encrypted actor still an actor as far as the
> processing
> model is concerned?
>
> If it's encrypted, a processor won't know it may have been targetted,
> and therefore it might do something bad like forward the header when
> it wasn't supposed to.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 18:56:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT