- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:21:39 -0500
- To: ext William Henry <william.henry@iona.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org
I'm not convinced those assumptions are correct. Why couldn't the first message not need an attachment and not bother sending a multipart message with only one part, yet the response need an attachment and multipart for rational reasons? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:22 PM, ext William Henry wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > > I think it's pretty obvious that if a requester sends a non-MTOM > request it must be assumed that they are using the alternative - > presumably whatever binding is specified in the binding. Then all > exchanges between requester and provider will be with that > alternative. If the requester uses MTOM then it is assumed that > exchanges will be with the MTOM alternative. > > I assume this is the same with security assertions two. Once using > an alternative it is assumed that it will be used on all exchanges > between that requester and provider. > > Regards, > William >
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 15:43:56 UTC