[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: One last change request to ebXML TRP.
Hello, > David Burdett educated me on ebXML's thinking on via and > traceheader. It > does make > sense now that I fully understand it (I was not privy to any > of the ebXML > discussions). If we look at the most widely used messaging/routing implementations (SMTP and IP) we will see, that both have a "Source Routing" or "Next Hop" Option (Unix Bang-Style or Domain Routing Addresses for SMTP and IP Source Route Option for IP) and both are rarely used and always make trouble for implementations. Therefore I agree, that the VIA Element is not an good Idea, we should depricate it's use. On the Other Hand a Trace-Header (like Received in RFC822) is a good Tool for Diagonstics. So TraceHeader should be mustUnderstand=false, but still present. It is of course not considered in the Envelop Signature. Of course this requires us XML-Level Signatures which are a major pain to impleent (opposed to simple PKCS#7 Signatures like RosettaNet is doing.) But since we already agreed in XML Sign, it is not a big issue, I think. Greetings Bernd
Powered by eList eXpress LLC