RE: [ws-sx] Issue 26: Chapter 6.7 [Security Header Layout]

["Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>]

Comments line.

Cheers

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 09 February 2006 20:41
> To: Dittmann, Werner; ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-sx] Issue 26: Chapter 6.7 [Security Header Layout]
> 
> This is now logged as issue 26.
> 
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dittmann, Werner [mailto:werner.dittmann@siemens.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:08 AM
> To: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Marc Goodner
> Subject: NEW Issue: Chapter 6.7 [Security Header Layout]
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL
> THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.
> 
> The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.
> 
> Protocol:  ws-sp
> ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-ed-01-r03-diff.pdf
> 
> Artifact:  spec
> 
> Type: design
> 
> Title: Chapter 6.7 [Security Header Layout]
> 
> Description:
> 
> Here the spec defines "LaxTimestampFirst" and "LaxTimestampLast", both
> define that a Timestamp MUST be included. On the other hand in chapter
> 6.2 [Timestamp] the spec defines another way to switch Timestamps
> on/off. Which one rules?

[MJG]
In order for [Security Header Layout] property values of
LaxTimeStampFirst or LaxTimeStampLast to be valid [Timestamp] MUST be
set to true. This is called out in the assertions description in section
7.2 but we could usefully call it out here, I think.

> 
> Related issues:
> none
> 
> Proposed Resolution:
> Clarify behaviour of these interdependencies.
> 
> Werner Dittmann
> Siemens COM MN CC BD TO
> mailto:Werner.Dittmann@siemens.com
> Tel:   +49(0)89 636 50265
> Mobil: +49(0)172 85 85 245
>