- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:27:49 +0600
- To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: <huseyin_davut@hotmail.com>, <www-ws@w3.org>
Why?? You can sign and encrypt it when you're sending it over SOAP for example. Why do we need something in WSDL itself? Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: <paul.downey@bt.com> To: <plh@w3.org> Cc: <huseyin_davut@hotmail.com>; <www-ws@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:19 PM Subject: RE: WSDL security > > that's an interesting point. maybe how a WSDL document itself may be signed > and/or encrypted should be raised as a Last Call comment to the WSD WG? > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org] > Sent: 01 September 2004 15:57 > To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C > Cc: huseyin_davut@hotmail.com; www-ws@w3.org > Subject: RE: WSDL security > > > On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 10:52, paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > > AIUI this falls into an area called "Policy", and such policy > > assertions may be described in WSDL 1.1/2.0 using an extension > > mechanism such as WS-SecurityPolicy [1] or possibly directly in the > > WSDL 2.0 language using "Features and Properties". > > Not necessarily. One might want to sign a WSDL document for example or > encrypt it for security reasons. > > Philippe > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 15:28:29 UTC