• To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'Mike Champion'" <mc@x...>, "'Dave Winer'" <dave@u...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:25:13 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0DF79B@h...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <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


Bill de hÓra 
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Great piece on RSS
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
• Next by Date: RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: RE: Great piece on RSS
• Next by thread: Re: Great piece on RSS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread