Re: [wss] Re: [wsi_secprofile] Re: [wss] about Hitachi's negative vote

[NISHIMURA Toshihiro <nishimura.toshi@jp.fujitsu.com>]

I agree that these issues must be clarified.

And I'd like to propose not to use the "document's URI" in next
revision, since the document's URI will not be fixed until later in
standardizing process.
Instead, I prefer to use URN expression such as
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password in SAML.

Toshi

At Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:03:44 -0400,
Ron Monzillo wrote:
> 
> I agree. The fragment id's were an editorial convenience, which seems
> to have resulted in a need for a clarification that the fully specified URIs
> must be used in the wire forms. It also must be clear what fully qualified
> URI's  must be used, since  each document lists (on it's front page) 2 
> URI's;
> the second of which (in each case) is likely not what we intend
> (i.e. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php)
> 
> Ron
> 
> Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> >
> > This is probably the right thing to say, but WS-I BSP is the wrong 
> > place to say it; it must be part of WSS.  BSP could (and should) say 
> > the URI's MUST NOT be fragments.
> >
> >> URI fragments defined in WSS: SOAP Message Security 1.0 are relative 
> >> to a base URI of 
> >> http://www.docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message-security-1.0 
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think WSS could reasonably claim that this is an editorial 
> > clarification and fix it in an errata.
> >
> >     /r$