RE: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

Prateek,

One thing that is not clear to me is whether every subsequent
Sequence-related message will need to carry a STR with a Usage of
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200602/SequenceToken"; or just the
CreateSequence message?

- gp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prateek Mishra [mailto:prateek.mishra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org; Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Attached to this message you will find an alternative 
> solution proposal that meets the requirements for i122-i124. 
> The proposal is co-authored by SAP and Oracle. The proposal 
> is expressed as a diff over your original proposal.
> 
> We believe that our proposal has certain advantages over the 
> original proposal. These include:
> 
> (1) Supports a more flexible interaction model (architecture) 
> between RM and the Security layer; RM layer does not have to 
> process or communicate security artefacts such as STRs. All 
> required STRs are found within the SOAP message security header.
> (2) Is based entirely on the OASIS WSS standard.
> (3) Provides a standard pattern which may be re-used for 
> other application protocols as it is based upon profiling the 
> STR usage attribute.
> (4) Has no additional impact on SecurityPolicy beyond that 
> found in the original proposal.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> prateek mishra
> 
> > This update is easy to understand but includes some 
> important tweeks 
> > that have been discussed on the list. Redlines are from the last 
> > revision of this proposal posted on June 21^st .
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00164.html
> >
> > First the observation Sanjay made that the header does not make any 
> > sense as mU=false has been addressed, the header now must 
> be mU=true.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00259.html
> >
> > I also added a reference to the SC section (I used the contributed 
> > version rather than the SX TC editor draft) that describes 
> the use of 
> > an STR in a message body to address Prateek's concern that 
> the RX TC 
> > not invent new mechanisms. The concern Gil mentioned that 
> there should 
> > be advice to favor a message independent reference over a local 
> > reference has also been added.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200607/msg00035.html
> >
> > Other than that I corrected a few 2119 terms that were not in caps.
> >
> > (Sorry if this is a dupe, I forgot the subject line and the OASIS 
> > mailer said it bounced)
> >
> 
>