> I agree. I don't think that we should hint that it is more important
> in one particular area since security needs to be applied everywhere
> and attacks happen where the security is the weakest, basically where
> it won't be mentioned. So mentioning it only in some places is wrong
> IMO, and mentioning it everywhere will clutter the diagram.
Ok, that makes sense to me.
> One comment though: I would drop all the WS prefixes since:
> - we are talking about Web services indeed.
> - the existence of specifications with resembling names is confusing;
> for example, one might wonder if WS Security on the right
> WS-Security or something else. I think that this particular diagram
> should stay fairly abstract.
Good point. Honestly, looking the first time at the diagram I was also
wondering why "WS-Security" (the Spec!) was mentioned. I think dropping
the WS prefix makes it more readable and less confusing.
Mario
--
Prof. Mario Jeckle
University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen
Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science
W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
URL: http://www.jeckle.de
MailTo:mario@jeckle.de
MailTo:jeckle@fh-furtwangen.de
My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pgp
