- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
- Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
As long as the intent is stated explicitly in the message that this is the desired semantics then it's ok and FWIW does not conflict with the SOAP 1.1 model. Making it implicitly the case in all situations would undermine our processing model significantly. Henrik >Yes, but SOAP 1.2 doesn't say that, and I prefer it the SOAP >1.2 way. I >would like to be able to put a digital signature in a message, >and have >that mean something to everyone along the way who's interested >in the fact >that I signed it. Ideally, I would address this to a role like >"signatureReaders" or "athenticators", but "relay" is an acceptable >compromise. I certainly want to feel that the contract is >from me to all >of them, not from me to the next hop. I was the one who did >the signing. >That was never a part of SOAP 1.1 that I particularly liked, and >regardless of our decision on if and how to do relay, I would >not want to >go back to the SOAP 1.1 formulation on congracts. Too >restrictive IMO.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 08:28:57 UTC