[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [change request #37] Secure communication support
I think we have the latter by just exposing secure ports. Am I missing anything? Best regards Carsten Leue ------- Dr. Carsten Leue Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401 Rich Thompson/Watson/I BM@IBMUS To wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org 01/24/2003 03:28 cc PM Subject [wsrp-wsia] [change request #37] Secure communication support Document: Spec Section: 5.1.10 Page/Line: 23/20 Requestedby: Michael Freedman Old text: Proposed text: Issue: Our description/support for secure communication seems weak. In many places we tie together into a single boolean secure comunication between the client and consumer as well as secure communication between the consumer and the producer. Why do we do this? Do we really allow a Producer to offer both secure and non-secure ports at the same time? What is this use case for this? If so shouldn't GetServiceDescription return a boolean field indicating which should be used? Or are we expecting the register call to throw a fault indicating secure access is required? I.e. if we believe there is a use case for supporting both ports and transitioning between them [in a manner that is tied to the client]I think I understand this field but then aren't we missing a simple way to indicate all communication between the consumer and producer should be secure regardless of the communication between the client and the consumer? ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC