[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] SwA Profile draft 15 vote Dec 14
|
Regarding #2, I'm not sure I understand the issue. In
either case the transform would include the angle brackets as part of the header
value (used for the digest) and in each case this header would have those
brackets (as part of a correct Content-ID header). This is orthogonal to how the
URI is formed to reference the attachment and how cid resolution is
performed.
I think the answer is "yes", Content-ID header values must
include angle brackets.
Regarding #1
Content-Location was included originally to
be complete, but then we discovered there was no perceived
requirement for it in the committee as evidenced by feedback and interop. We've
asked this in a number of emails and WSS meetings.
Practicality and simplicity trumped theoretical
completeness. It sounds like you are also asking why we would need
Content-Location to be included, and the committee answer is that CIDs are
appropriate.
regards, Frederick From: ext Ramana Turlapati [mailto:ramana.rao.turlapati@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:49 PM To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-TP/Boston); wss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wss] SwA Profile draft 15 vote Dec 14 Frederick,
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?
2. Section 4.4.1 Step 7
---------------------------------
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.
/t$r
(Ramana Turlapati)
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]