NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security (Guidelines and Primer) from Frederick Hirsch on 2006-11-04 (public-ws-policy@w3.org from November 2006)

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:02:13 -0500
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Message-Id: <7DEB88EE-1D7D-4456-9E63-33569ACA5C8B@nokia.com>

NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security (Guidelines  
and Primer)

Bug 3952 - <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3952>

Target: Guidelines, primer

Justification:

MTOM is a very bad example for optionality since it raises  
ambiguities depending on message flow.Bbest practices might suggest  
using different endpoints for with and without MTOM. Reason is that  
MTOM assertion mandates usage of MTOM on both requests and responses,  
so request without MTOM is ambiguous, is it a message that wouldn't  
naturally use MTOM, is it in error, or does it signal desire not to  
use MTOM.

Proposal:
Change to example using WS-SecurityPolicy, for example that messages  
optionally may need timestamp using Timestamp assertion.

Test: review guidelines and primer.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 16:02:29 UTC