RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>]

Can you state your use case ? as there may be other ways to solve this.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
"Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>

"Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>

08/31/2005 06:28 PM

To	"DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>
cc	"Tech Rams" <techmailing@yahoo.com>, wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, wss@lists.oasis-open.org
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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wss-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org