Re: [ws-rx] Updated proposal for i121

[Prateek Mishra <prateek.mishra@oracle.com>]

Gil,

This document is definitely a step in the right direction. A few 
comments are attached below:


(1) The connection between encryption and message integrity is 
misleading. TLS includes a message integrity check using HMAC (keyed MAC)
on a per-message basis. Use of encryption supports a confidentiality 
requirement not message integrity; all references to encryption should 
be removed from
the draft (unless confidentiality is an additional requirement) .  I can 
propose alternative language in a change version of your draft.

(2) I am troubled by prescriptive advice given on lines 184-186 that 
describes a specific technique for identifying a security token.
As we have discussed before, the requirement to connect a specific 
security  token to a specific message is a general requirement extending 
beyond RX. It would be much better if this text were  to make reference 
to Section 8 of WS-SC which describes this technique versus inventing it 
from scratch,

(3) Lines 189-192 state:
[quote] 

For the lifetime of the Sequence the RM Source and the RM Destination 
use the session key(s) associated with the security context to either 
sign or encrypt (as defined by WS-Security) at least the body and any 
relevant WS-RM-defined headers of any and all messages or faults that 
refer to that Sequence.

[\quote]

The reference to encryption should be removed.  Is it also possible to 
explicitly list the headers  that must be signed?


(4) Finally, Section 3 of WS-SC describes different models for 
establishing a shared SC. Should this specification offer advice on the 
models
supported by a RM source and destination? Are all three models supported?


---------------
prateek