RE: WSDL security

taken, but this really is "eating your own dog food" given most
folks publish their WSDL at a HTTP/S URI (even if that is indexed
using something like UDDI). It might be nice if a stand alone WSDL 
document could be signed.
 
i look forward to seeing WSDLs describing SOAP endpoints which
return the WSDL describing a SOAP service :-)
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
 Sent: Wed 01/09/2004 16:27 
 To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; plh@w3.org 
 Cc: huseyin_davut@hotmail.com; www-ws@w3.org 
 Subject: Re: WSDL security
 
 

 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 17:32:45 UTC