+1 to fix in errata.
+1 to fix spec in future revisions.
Yes, We had this problem and we had to look at messages from
MSFT/BeTrsuted to figure it out.
-- dims
-----Original Message-----
From: Reid, Irving [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [wss] about Hitachi's negative vote
I strongly agree that this clarification belongs in the OASIS
WS-Security specifications, rather than being shuffled off to WS-I. I'm
OK with it being in errata for 1.0, and fixed in the spec text for any
future revisions.
- irving -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:]
> Sent: April 5, 2004 11:05
> To: Michael McIntosh
> Cc: ; ;
>
> Subject: [wss] Re: [wsi_secprofile] Re: [wss] about Hitachi's negative
> vote
>
>
>
> This is probably the right thing to say, but WS-I BSP is the wrong
> place to say it; it must be part of WSS. BSP could (and should) say
> the URI's MUST NOT be fragments.
>
> > URI fragments defined in WSS: SOAP Message Security 1.0 are
> relative
> > to
> > a base URI of
> >
> http://www.docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-so
ap-message-security-1.0
I think WSS could reasonably claim that this is an editorial
clarification and fix it in an errata.
/r$
--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup
.php.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup
.php.
