OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References

Can you state your use case ? as there may be other ways to solve this.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Inactive hide details for "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>"Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>

          "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>

          08/31/2005 06:28 PM


"DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>


"Tech Rams" <techmailing@yahoo.com>, wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, wss@lists.oasis-open.org


RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References

DeMartini, Thomas wrote on 8/31/2005, 6:45 PM:

> So, if we edited 903-904 as follows (removing things in {} and adding
> things in []), would the new words be sufficiently unambiguous?
> "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for {where to find} a
> security token. If a fragment is specified, then it indicates the local
> ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST identify a
> security token.  The URI MUST NOT identify a wsse:SecurityTokenReference
> element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a
> wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]"

Yeah, I'd say that's unambiguous.

And that would mean that we would not be able to reuse the
element as-is for our use case.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wss-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org

GIF image

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]