[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No, I am not talking about non-repudiation.
I suggest that what the UDDI registering vendor
asserts is litigable if they fail to back it up.
What the Googler says about a vendor would be
called heresay.
What the web says is not the issue. It is the
inference a court makes because that is where
the authority to decide will vest given a dispute.
The web is not the government or the court.
len
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill.dehora@propylon.com]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
>
> UDDI may not be the best player,
> but it does have the quality that what one
> asserts one must back up.
Not true Len. You're talking about non-repudiation. Overview material on
UDDI 3.0 talks about non-repudiation too. Yet, the spec has nothing to
say about it. Nor is an inter-registry trust model specified. It's all
either optional, or wholly unspecified. I'm left wondering what UDDI
actually provides in this area.
It does say that one can optionally digitally sign entries. UDDI 3.0
dsig: http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi_v3.htm#_Toc12653994
|
