[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] RE: Emailing: EPMService-schema-verify.xsd
> Right now the draft says: "All options must have some default value, so > that a client may omit the <Options> element yet still get service from any > DSS server." Yeah, I was gonna ask about that. :) I understand the reasoning, but it makes me feel a little uneasy. Suppose a server doesn't want to sign without some kind of proof-of-posession kind of indicator. Can the "service" it responds with be a Fault? Can we change that MUST have a default to SHOULD? > It depends on the previous issue, I think. My first choice is do all > extensions as <Options>, and have them all (or at least mostly) be optional. Perhaps we change the name to Specifiers or ProcessingOptions or some such. But I don't think we need two containers: those that have defaults and those that don't. > I know making > everything an Option limits what you can do as a profile designer - but if > you can meet that constraint, the jobs of people using our stuff becomes > much easier, cause they can count on a minimum of compatibility. Exactly. /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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]