RE: Proposing a wsa:Security element

In my view, all the security information shd be collected together and
shd go in the policy sub-bucket of the metadata bucket.  But there are 
many subtleties here depending on which direction the message is flowing etc.

I suggest that the WS-Addressing WG not attempt to solve this problem. 
The existence of a metadata bucket(in place or by reference) is fine.
The details shd be left to another WG. 

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addresspendiing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rich Salz
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:31 AM
> To: Hugo Haas
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element
> 
> 
> > Couldn't such information go in the [metadata] bucket? It 
> seems that 
> > we added it for things just like that.
> 
> Perhaps.  If you see my longer note about "trust model," 
> you'll see that we need a way to aggregate a bunch of 
> security information, and make sure it ends up in a 
> WS-Security element.  This may be different from other 
> security information that just needs to be used between the 
> client and the epr minter (which,  I know, if out of scope; 
> out security model should support some kind of interaction 
> there, however).
> 
> Yes, a wsa:Security can go into the metadata bucket.  But 
> saying that all or any ds:Signature, 
> wsse:SecurityTokenReference, etc., elements get the kind of 
> binding I propsed for wsa:Security, is a mistake.
> 
> 	/r$
> 
> --
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology                           
> http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway   
> http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 16:19:13 UTC