[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
DeMartini, Thomas wrote on 8/31/2005, 6:45 PM: > So, if we edited 903-904 as follows (removing things in {} and adding > things in []), would the new words be sufficiently unambiguous? > > "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for {where to find} a > security token. If a fragment is specified, then it indicates the local > ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST identify a > security token. The URI MUST NOT identify a wsse:SecurityTokenReference > element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a > wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]" Yeah, I'd say that's unambiguous. And that would mean that we would not be able to reuse the element as-is for our use case. Conor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]