Re: [ubl-dev] Treasury Tag Pattern: to 'glue' two instances havingdifferent schemas

Chin Chee-Kai:

You are correct.  I am merely displaying my personal displeasure with 
xs:any.  I always felt it was like declaring "We think that's probably 
good enough but there may be something we missed" which I equate to 
sloppy engineering practices. It is a personal nit and I am prone to 
attack it in *any* place I see it used (begging pardon on the pun also).

;-)

Duane

Chin Chee-Kai wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>....  You would have to have some out of
>>>bandwidth agreement with the receiver ....
>>>      
>>>
>
>Did you mean "out-of-band agreement", or did I miss your pun
>that the agreement would be so voluminous as to run out of
>bandwidth?
>
>
>  
>
>>>DN - agree with UBL thinking.  xs:any is harmful for interoperability
>>>since an instance may pass but could have anything in it.  It also
>>>leaves the door wide open for DoS attacks (a couple hundred mbs of CDATA
>>>could be added to messages and they would be processed).
>>>      
>>>
>
>I can appreciate your words of caution on use of xsd:any, but
>won't go so far as to associate xsd:any as a "built-in security
>weakness" of XSD that allows DoS attacks ;   a simple proof would be
>to see that DoS attacks can occur with huge incoming UBL 1.0
>invoice/PO/etc instances even though UBL 1.0 has no use of xsd:any.
>I shan't say how, but probably most would easily figure it out.
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>Chin Chee-Kai
>SoftML
>Tel: +65-6820-2979
>Fax: +65-6743-7875
>Email: 
>http://SoftML.Net/
>
>
>  
>