Hal,
Security bindings inside the security policy specification are
modeled using properties. The values for the security binding’s properties are
set using assertions inside the policy documents. There is a mapping between
property values and assertions that is defined by the specification. In this
particular case, there is a mapping defined for
sp:Layout/wsp:Policy/sp:LaxTsFirst and sp:Layout/wsp:Policy/sp:LaxTsLast and
values defined for the security binding’s [Security Header Layout] property –
LaxTimestampFirst and LaxTimestampLast. This mapping is defined in the
individual assertions description text in section 7.2.
I agree with you that the name of the assertion and the value of
the property could be the same however I don’t see this as a requirement. Also
the property values unlike assertions do not have direct on-the-wire
representation, they are only used by the specification document to describe
various variables that influence the security binding. Therefore I don’t see a
need to change the [Security Header Layout] property values to match the assertions.
Thanks,
--Jan
From: Greg Carpenter
[mailto:gregcarp@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:47 PM
To: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-sx] Issue PR008: Element Names Inconsistent in Layout
Policy
Issue PR008
- From: "Hal
Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>
- To:
<ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec
2006 14:13:56 -0800
PLEASE
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL
THE
ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.
The
issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.
Protocol:
ws-sp
-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cd-01.pdf
Artifact:
spec
Type:
editorial
Title:
Element
Names Inconsistent in Layout Policy
Description:
Section
6.7 has:
LaxTimestampFirst
LaxTimestampLast
But
Section 7.2 has:
<sp:LaxTsFirst
... /> and <sp:LaxTsLast ... />
Related
issues:
none
Proposed
Resolution:
Change
section 6.7 to LaxTsFirst and LaxTsLast
Hal