RE: [wss] Issue 13, Lines 856-858 in Core, discussed at the call today

["Levinson, Richard" <rlevinson@netegrity.com>]

Chris,

I have researched this a little further and the conclusion
I come to is that there already exists a body of implementations
that utilize proposal 2: i.e. security tokens at the front
and signatures and encryption blocks at the back with new
signature or encryption blocks prepending existing signature
or encryption blocks, but not prepending security tokens or
the timestamp.

Therefore, I am recommending the following proposal which first
explains the current problem and then gives an explicit 
recommendation to resolve the issues.