wss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
- From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:20:00 -0500
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
"Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
"Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
08/31/2005 06:28 PM
|
|
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.
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wss-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]