[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wss] Comments on Specification
I have not heard an over a lot of votes for or against the proposal to use schema in place of the current examples. We need to take a vote on this as it will take a somewhat large effort to do this change. Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122 |---------+----------------------------> | | "Flinn, Don" | | | <Don.Flinn@quadra| | | sis.com> | | | | | | 11/11/2002 08:23 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org | | cc: | | Subject: [wss] Comments on Specification | | | | | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| WS_Security Core, Draft 3 uses examples to define/explain WS-Security. I question whether this is the most unambiguous way to define WS-Security or whether we should use the WS-Security schema to define the specification as is done in other OASIS specifications. I believe the latter would be more exacting. Re: The comment by David Orchard on incorporating WSDL in the WS-Security specification. I believe that this would be the right direction for WS-Security. On the other hand, (as Truman pleaded - Give me a one-handed economist :-) we do have a goal of completing the specification in ~6 months. If we could add something meaningful wrt WSDL in a short time, I for one, would be for it. Don ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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