Re: NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security (Gui delines and Primer)

Yes, but that doesn't correct the assertion ambiguity/confusion.

By the way, I think Daniel's proposal on day 3 of the F2F should take  
care of the immediate concerns, if I understood it correctly from the  

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Nov 13, 2006, at 2:18 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> Hi,
> Could the client indicate it wants to receive a MTOM message using  
> the HTTP
> Accept: multipart/related;type="application/xop+xml", even though  
> it does
> not send a multipart (MTOM/XOP) encoded message?	
> Regards,
> Prasad
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: ext William Henry
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch;
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Change optional example from MTOM to security
> (Guidelines and Primer)
> 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 22:10:47 UTC