RE: Soap Message Canonicalization (SM-C14N)

Sounds perfect to me - thank you!


>I agree.  We do need to say something about where blocks can
>be inserted. 
>I would suggest a default behavior that blocks can be inserted 
>anywhere in 
>the header, with the usual proviso that mU headers targeted to 
>the node 
>can change the rules.  Does that sound right?


>We should by no means preclude even stricter constraints but
>it might be better to leave that to our normal extensibility 
>mechanism. For example, if one wants to control the complete 
>order of ALL blocks through ALL SOAP nodes in a message path, 
>would this not be better accomplished by providing a next hop 
>block that indicates this additional constraint on every node? 

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 17:22:13 UTC