- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:56:45 -0500
- To: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
- CC: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, Mike Just <Mike.Just@entrust.com>, www-xkms-ws@w3c.org
> You wouldn't actually need to have a different WSDL description per URL. No, you don't HAVE to have them; I was putting too much on the "private" notation made in the current spec about the service URL. I'd expect someone who was providing an outsourced service would want to keep each binding in a separate file, but that's just a guess. > Either suggested approach for handling multiple trust models would work. > I think the real issue is whether the folks planning to build such > services believe one of them makes their life simpler. I tend to favor > the URL model, but admit this view is based on fairly limited thinking > about how I might want to deploy such a system. Same here. > I can't imagine clients trying to deal > dynamically with what trust models are supported by a given service. > Going to web page to get info on supported trust models (like current > CPS docs for CAs) seems adequate to me. Agreed. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.com
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 16:56:19 UTC