- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:28:21 -0800
- To: "'Joseph Hui'" <jhui@digisle.net>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "transaction processing". I have heard the term used in more than one way. Is the concern essentially to have a mechanism for handling stateful transactions -- for example, to carry state information in the messages? Or are you talking about the idea of "rolling back" a transaction if it fails -- or possibly of initiating compensating transactions? -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:14 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Krishna Sankar; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security > -----Original Message----- [snip] > Could we possibly consider putting reliable messaging into > the security bucket? I don't think so. There's no security primitives that would fit the bill of reliable messaging (RM), which I sometimes characterize as "layer-7 TCP" where a session between two endpoints may span over several time-serialized connections, disconnections, reconnections. AG006 may include securing RM, but not RM per se. While at it, let me mention that if you want to include RM in WS-Arch, then you may as well not leave out transaction processing. [snip] > it is a natural > progression of thought: "I'm worried about who the author of > the message > is, whether it is distorted, and that IT ACTUALLY GETS THERE". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There no security primitives that can guarantee data arrival. Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 17:32:10 UTC