- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:41:29 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 10:03 US/Eastern, Rich Salz wrote: > Marc Hadley wrote: >> One solution to this would be to leave part 1 unchanged and update >> the SOAP message normalization note[1], adding removal of empty >> Header elements to the algorithm. > > That removes the ambiguity for signing, but if the original message > but it doesn't allow anyone to add a header if the original message > has no Header EII, as Gudge pointed out. His belief is that this is > not the intent. > Ah, yes I missed that. I suppose one *could* interpret rule #1 that way so some clarification text would be useful. An additional sentence in rule #3 would probably suffice: 3. Element information items for additional header blocks MAY be added to the [children] property of the SOAP Header element information item as detailed in 2.7.2 SOAP Forwarding Intermediaries. In this case, a SOAP Header element information item MAY be added if not already present. Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 10:42:44 UTC