RE: [wss] Issue: Binary Token & XML Token should be abstract

["Chris Kaler" <ckaler@microsoft.com>]

Wouldn't this mean that each token format would need its own XML
Element?  Since all binary tokens have the same syntax, what is the
advantage over a common element with a value attribute as currently
specified?

Similarly, the two most notable XML token formats exist and are not
derived from anything.  How would you support them in this type system?
The goal was to allow a profile to take existing mechanisms and use them
directly.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Flinn [mailto:flinn@alum.mit.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 6:32 AM
To: WSS
Subject: [wss] Issue: Binary Token & XML Token should be abstract

I believe that both the Binary Token and the XML Token should be
abstract
types.  This means that they can not be instantiated by themselves but
need
to have a derived element, which, in the present wsse case, would be
defined
in profiles. The existing potential derived profiles are the X.509 and
Kerberos, which would be derived from the Binary Token and the SAML,
XCBF
and XrML tokens, which would be derived from the XML Token.  Additional
profiles may derive from either an abstract type or may be a top level
element.

In my previous mail I suggested that the derived token be in a
substitution
group or a choice.  Subsequent conversations have convinced me that this
would be too restrictive as the intent of the TC was to have an "open"
model. Therefore, I am dropping the later and just proposing that the
Binary
and XML tokens be optional, abstract types.   I believe that the
proposed
inheritance gives structure and clarity to this part of the
specification.

Comments please.

Don


====================
Donald Flinn
Managing Partner
Flint Security
Phone: (781) 856-7230
e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
Web Page: http://dflinn.home.attbi.com