W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2003

Re: New Attachments Issues

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:35:02 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-id: <B8AFC5E9-9B50-11D7-9D53-0003937568DC@sun.com>

So, to paraphrase, you would say that:

(1) We DO NOT expect intermediaries to preserve what is serialized as 
attachments and what is serialized inside the SOAP envelope.

(2) The binding determines which nodes to serialize as attachments in 
an implementation specific manner.

That's certainly a coherent answer to the two issues.

Your proposed answers probably have some implications for the set of 
security technologies we can apply to messages containing attachments, 
e.g. I expect it would prevent use of S/MIME or PGP-MIME. It also means 
that digital signatures must always be calculated on the text data 
representation of attachments and verified using the same - i.e. even 
if you use attachments to optimize the transfer, if you are using XML 
security that includes the attachment data then you always need to 
compute the base64 transform at both sender and receiver.

Marc.

On Tuesday, Jun 10, 2003, at 07:46 US/Eastern, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> As we're only talking about optimization of transfer of binary data
> (we're not yet talking about the other aspects of PASWA, like
> swa:Representation), it is not critical from our point of view that the
> optimization be preserved across intermediaries (1) or that it be done
> at all (2). However, I do think we should say something, so I prefer
> option (ii) below - that we say your two questions are answered in
> implementations in an implementation-specific way.
>
> It is important that whatever we produce from PASWA emphasizes the fact
> that we're providing a possible optimization of binary data transfer 
> and
> how it may be particularly useful with the other stuff like
> swa:Representation.
>
> Best regards,
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:25, Marc Hadley wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Following the resolution of issue 429[1], I'd like to raise the
>> following new issues:
>>
>> 1: "What are the semantics of attachments w.r.t. SOAP intermediaries.
>> E.g. do we expect intermediaries to preserve what is serialized as
>> attachments and what is serialized inside the SOAP envelope."
>>
>> 2: "How does the binding determine which nodes to serialize as
>> attachments ?"
>>
>> Amongst the many possible answers, the following spring immediately to
>> mind:
>>
>> (i) We don't specify that.
>> (ii) An implementation specific mechanism (similar to (i) but we
>> explicitly say so).
>> (iii) Its triggered by something in the infoset - if so, what.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marc.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x429
>>
>> --
>> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
>> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 10:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT