Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] What Next?
3
reasons.
1.
This doesn't encode the SOAP Envelope. If you want to obscure this information
(the manifest information, etc) you need to encrypt the entire
message.
2. What about
SMTP?
3.
What about multihop? Maybe you don't want the information available at the
intermediate hop.
Cliff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:28
AM
To: David Fischer; ;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] What
Next?
David,
I'm
unclear why encapsulation is necessary to encrypt entire messages, especially
if a payload item is already encrypted. It seems SSL would provide
sufficient encryption of an entire message, including MIME headers.
I
could see using S/MIME of OpenPGP to digitally sign an entire message,
but SSL should be sufficient for encryption
purposes.
Am I
missing something?
Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway,
Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002
10:06 AM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] What
Next?
We need to consider Encapsulation again. This has a
number of potential uses:
Encryption
(encrypt the entire document including MIME headers)
Forwarding/Multi-hop (especially with the identified problems with
Signatures)
Third-Party Processing (Intermediate Timestamps...)
Chunking
(sending extremely large files in pieces)
I am sure there will be others.
We used this concept in the UCC Interop test to do
encryption and it worked
quite well. See
document attached.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:52 AM
To:
Subject:
[ebxml-msg] What Next?
Team,
I hope you have
all had a pleasant break over the last couple of
weeks. As the title says what do we do next? It is up to
you, but here are
some ideas to start with.
1 - we MUST capture, answer and resolve any question and
issues during the 3
month public review of version
2.0
2 - The IIC TC would like to produce a
conformance test/suite/documentation
for version
2.0, they will obvious need help from us to do this.
3 - The Business interface layer has never been written - do we need
it?
4 - A primer/introduction to the messaging
service
5 - A document to describe the minimum
implementation. This may be linked
to the IIC
TC point above.
Question: - Do we still have outstanding requirements that
still need to be
addressed? i.e. a definable
business need for them.
Over to all of
you for comments.
Ian Jones
Chair OASIS ebXML
Messaging Services TC
Email:
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
