[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
No, I am not talking about non-repudiation. I suggest that what the UDDI registering vendor asserts is litigable if they fail to back it up. What the Googler says about a vendor would be called heresay. What the web says is not the issue. It is the inference a court makes because that is where the authority to decide will vest given a dispute. The web is not the government or the court. len From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill.dehora@p...] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] > > UDDI may not be the best player, > but it does have the quality that what one > asserts one must back up. Not true Len. You're talking about non-repudiation. Overview material on UDDI 3.0 talks about non-repudiation too. Yet, the spec has nothing to say about it. Nor is an inter-registry trust model specified. It's all either optional, or wholly unspecified. I'm left wondering what UDDI actually provides in this area. It does say that one can optionally digitally sign entries. UDDI 3.0 dsig: http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi_v3.htm#_Toc12653994
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|