RE: [dss] RE: Emailing: EPMService-schema-verify.xsd

[Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>]

> 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