[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] NEW Issue: Do sp:Header assertions inSigned/EncryptedParts, enforce the presense of those headers
+1, that covers it. -----Original Message----- From: Ruchith Fernando [mailto:ruchith@wso2.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:16 PM To: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-sx] NEW Issue: Do sp:Header assertions in Signed/EncryptedParts, enforce the presense of those headers I'd like to withdraw this issue! The spec is clear about the behaviour that I wanted a clarification for [1]. Thanks, Ruchith [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cd-02.html#_Toc161826512 Ruchith Fernando wrote: > PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSION THREAD UNTIL > THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER. > > The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred. > > > Protocol: ws-securitypolicy > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/22786/ > ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-ed-02-r3.pdf > > > Artifact: spec / schema > > > Type: clarification > > > Title: Do sp:Header assertions in Signed/EncryptedParts, enforce the > presence of those headers > > Description: > > When we specify sp:Header elements in sp:SignedParts or > sp:EncryptedParts, is it correct to enforce the pretense of *all* > those headers in the SOAP msg and throw a fault if any one of the the > headers are missing? > > If so, do we have (or is it possible to have) some mechanism to > specify headers to be signed only if they are present? > > Related issues: > > None. > > > Proposed Resolution:
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]