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

RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5035D985.EC32EF7E-ON85256C56.006A8089@lotus.com>










Nilo Mitra writes:

>> Following up on Henrik's point about the contract between a sender and 
>> the "next" recipient, I notice that SOAP 1.1 had said something 
explicit 
>> about the notion of the contract not extending beyond the first player 

Yes, but SOAP 1.2 doesn't say that, and I prefer it the SOAP 1.2 way.  I 
would like to be able to put a digital signature in a message, and have 
that mean something to everyone along the way who's interested in the fact 
that I signed it.  Ideally, I would address this to a role like 
"signatureReaders" or "athenticators", but "relay" is an acceptable 
compromise.  I certainly want to feel that the contract is from me to all 
of them, not from me to the next hop.  I was the one who did the signing.  
That was never a part of SOAP 1.1 that I particularly liked, and 
regardless of our decision on if and how to do relay, I would not want to 
go back to the SOAP 1.1 formulation on congracts.  Too restrictive IMO. 
Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 08:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT