|
Paul,
The reason I ask is that I feel decision
to test CID scheme only for WSS SwA Interop was quite arbitrary. I could be
wrong but at least I am not aware of any basis for this decision.
IMO it was not, until we discussed in BSP that this issue came up for
discussion in the OASIS TC.
/t$r
(Ramana Turlapati)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:15
PM
Subject: RE: [wss] SwA Profile draft 15
vote Dec 14
>On the same lines, is it
appropriate for a WSS Profile to limit the usage on grounds of
interoperability and simplicity, or is it something that BSP should
do?
Given that the TC has
been doing interoperability testing on each of specifications, I wonder why
you ask this. If it was not appropriate to refine our specifications in
the face of interoperability testing why have we been doing
it?
/paulc
From: Ramana
Turlapati [mailto:ramana.rao.turlapati@oracle.com]
Sent: December 8, 2004 5:49
PM
To:
Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wss] SwA Profile draft 15
vote Dec 14
Here are couple of items that need
clarification.
1. Section 4.2 Referencing
Attachments
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know this has been brought up in
TC and nobody had any objections for this limitation of not supporting
referencing using content location header.
I look at change log and see that
initially SwA supported CID scheme only. At a later pt of time (06/12/04) we
included support for Content Location and removed in the
latest draft. Do we know what was the basis of its inclusion, were we
addressing a specific requirement then?
On the same lines, is it
appropriate for a WSS Profile to limit the usage on grounds of
interoperability and simplicity, or is it something that BSP should
do?
---------------------------------
Imagine a scenario where
there are two SOAP Envelopes, one with an attachment that is not referenced
from the SOAP:Body , another with the same attachment referenced from
SOAP:Body (ala swa-ref).
Now if these attachments are
signed using attachment complete transform, in the first as well as second
case, the signature is computed with content-id and "<" brackets. Now how
does the receiver of these requests know what to restore as the real
content-id of the attachment ? Am I correct in thinking that in the latter
case "<>" have to be retained as the downstream swa-ref processing is
expecting to see it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:13 AM
Subject: [wss]
SwA Profile draft 15 vote Dec 14
This is a reminder that we plan
to vote on the SwA profile, draft 15 [1] for Committee Draft, next Tuesday,
14 Dec.
Please review the specification
in advance and post any issues to the WSS mailling
list.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
|