RE: [ebxml-msg] Updated Security Section Draft

We need to remind early on (before Section 12 on Conformance) that alternatives such as WSS1.0 / WSS 1.1 (and the interoperability issues these may cause) is supposed to be dealt with at conformance profile level - defined in a companion doc ("ebMS3 adjuncts").

- We could remind this every time such an alternative occurs (WSS 1.*, SOAP 1.*, WS-Rel*)

- or we could do it early on in 1.3 (caveat and assumptions) with adding:

"This specification presents some alternatives regarding underlying specifications (e.g. SOAP 1.1/1.2, WSS1.0/1.1, and WS specifications that may support the reliability function). This does not imply that a conforming implementation has to support them all, nor that it is free to support any option. The definition of conformance profiles - out of scope for this document, and to be described in an adjunct OASIS document - will complement this specification by asserting which option(s) must be supported in order to claim support for a particular conformance profile. Interoperability is conditioned by conformance to compatible profiles. See section 12 (Conformance) for more details."

Jacques

From: Ric Emery [mailto:remery@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:08 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Updated Security Section Draft

Here is a draft of the updated Security Section. I took the bullet list from the last draft and blew it out into what I would consider a more useful form. The prose could use some work, but I think I have covered all the high points.

ebxml-msg message