Prateek,
One thing that is not clear to me is whether every subsequent
Sequence-related message will need to carry a STR with a Usage of
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200602/SequenceToken" or just the
CreateSequence message?
- gp
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prateek Mishra [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ; Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124
>
> Marc,
>
> Attached to this message you will find an alternative
> solution proposal that meets the requirements for i122-i124.
> The proposal is co-authored by SAP and Oracle. The proposal
> is expressed as a diff over your original proposal.
>
> We believe that our proposal has certain advantages over the
> original proposal. These include:
>
> (1) Supports a more flexible interaction model (architecture)
> between RM and the Security layer; RM layer does not have to
> process or communicate security artefacts such as STRs. All
> required STRs are found within the SOAP message security header.
> (2) Is based entirely on the OASIS WSS standard.
> (3) Provides a standard pattern which may be re-used for
> other application protocols as it is based upon profiling the
> STR usage attribute.
> (4) Has no additional impact on SecurityPolicy beyond that
> found in the original proposal.
>
>
> Thanks,
> prateek mishra
>
> > This update is easy to understand but includes some
> important tweeks
> > that have been discussed on the list. Redlines are from the last
> > revision of this proposal posted on June 21^st .
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00164.html
> >
> > First the observation Sanjay made that the header does not make any
> > sense as mU=false has been addressed, the header now must
> be mU=true.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00259.html
> >
> > I also added a reference to the SC section (I used the contributed
> > version rather than the SX TC editor draft) that describes
> the use of
> > an STR in a message body to address Prateek's concern that
> the RX TC
> > not invent new mechanisms. The concern Gil mentioned that
> there should
> > be advice to favor a message independent reference over a local
> > reference has also been added.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200607/msg00035.html
> >
> > Other than that I corrected a few 2119 terms that were not in caps.
> >
> > (Sorry if this is a dupe, I forgot the subject line and the OASIS
> > mailer said it bounced)
> >
>
>
