OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification


Please see couple of follow ups below in <PY></PY> brackets.

David Burdett wrote:

> Prasad
> Please see comments below. Let me know if you have any more queries.
> David
> PS i'm behind on my ebXML emails. Aim to catch up on the rest tomorrow.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 4:53 PM
> To: David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification
> If  "Message Routing Info" is something that is (potentially)
> extended as each time the message passes through a new hop, shouldn't it
> really be disjoint from the rest of the Message Header (that has headers
> that are closely coupled with the business exchange)? That would also help
> the case of a "relay" or a "hub" not having to look at the real business
> message to be able to route.
> ## Agreed. That's why the Message Routing Info is a separate part of the
> Message Envelope (see section 2) ##

<PY> True. But it really depends on what form the Header Envelope takes. Section
6.1 "Header Envelope" does not specify this yet.

> 1.      Shouldn't the  "Signatures" be really part of the message Body
> rather than Header?  ##There is no reason why you can't put signatures in
> the body if you want to. However if signatures are put in a specific place
> where the header can recognize them, then it means that it should be
> possible for middleware software to check the signatures in some standard
> way that would reduce the burden on the application programmer - as long as
> the application programmer trusts the software ...## Or may be a separate
> entity by itself (neither header nor Body)  ##This is a perfectly valid
> option, since you could have, for example, Header Envelope; Signature(s);
> Message Body. In that sequence. I think it's always a good idea to put
> signatures neare the start. Thinking about it though, if we point to the
> signatures from the Message Manifest, I'm not really sure it matters much
> where you put the signature piece.##  It os not clear to me, how the
> association between a signature and the part(s) of the message it signs
> would be established?   ## In S/MIME it's done by physical association (I
> think !) in XMLDSIG, you can point to the thing that is being singed using a
> URI.##  I am thinking we need to have a structure that permits signing the
> routing headers (potentially multiple times, as they get changed),
> individual parts (on a per part basis) and the whole message (again multiple
> times if needed).   ##I've always thought that you could have multiple
> signatures (see the "s" on signatures in section 2). What we need to do is
> work out an approach where the individual signatures and their purpose can
> be quickly and easily determined.##

<PY> This is a tricky and complex aspect to nail IMHO. Is this specification
going to address this (again in section 6) or is there a specification that is
slated for these aspects?

Thanks, Prasad

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC