RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References

Can you state your use case ? as there may be other ways to solve this.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Conor P. Cahill" <>

"Conor P. Cahill" <> 

08/31/2005 06:28 PM

To

"DeMartini, Thomas" <>

cc

"Tech Rams" <>, , 

Subject

RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References

DeMartini, Thomas wrote on 8/31/2005, 6:45 PM:

 > So, if we edited 903-904 as follows (removing things in {} and adding

 > things in []), would the new words be sufficiently unambiguous?

 >

 > "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for {where to find} a

 > security token. If a fragment is specified, then it indicates the local

 > ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST identify a

 > security token.  The URI MUST NOT identify a wsse:SecurityTokenReference

 > element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a

 > wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]"

Yeah, I'd say that's unambiguous.

And that would mean that we would not be able to reuse the

element as-is for our use case.

Conor

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

For additional commands, e-mail: