Stateless comms in the WSA
Mark Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:44:51PM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: > This is a very useful thread. Picking up on Hal's point, I'd like to see > specific suggestions for what the WSA document should say about this issue. > > > - What section should it be in? Some sort of "General principles of using > XML in web services payloads maybe?" Then we can talk about SOAP's > philosophy about DTDs and PIs, this general point about potential security > threats from the actions that schema processors could perform? We might > also mention in this section that it is not possible to use W3C DTDs or > Schemas to fully validate an XML message against the SOAP 1.1 or 1.2 specs > because there is no way to disallow processing instructions, Doctype > references or DTD internal subsets via any current schema language. > > - What is the implication for the architecture itself? I'm not sure ...does > anyone think that this needs to be in the domain of any future working > group? Oh yes, most definitely. Stateless communication is a key architectural constraint of the Web, and I've also heard many Web services people talk about its value too. > - What's the implication for Best Practice? My personal, humble opinion is > something like "One MAY use W3C XML Schemas for validating the payload of > a web services message, but one SHOULD NOT rely on anything in the PSVI that > is not in the raw InfoSet representation." I'd say "MUST NOT", since to do so creates interoperability problems (or if we're giving direction to spec authors, 'SHOULD use "MUST NOT"' 8-). Also, we should try to generalize it and use the PSVI, external entities, etc. as examples. There are other ways of doing the wrong thing here, and they're not all obvious. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. [email protected] http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com