Re: [wss] Groups - wss-kerberos-interop.doc uploaded

["Ramana Turlapati" <ramana.rao.turlapati@oracle.com>]

> Do Oracle plan on participating in the interop event?
No plans yet.

/t$r
(Ramana Turlapati)

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ramana Turlapati [mailto:ramana.rao.turlapati@oracle.com]
> > Sent: 08 December 2004 16:45
> > To: Martin Gudgin; Rich Salz
> > Cc: wss@lists.oasis-open.org; Ken Ballou
> > Subject: Re: [wss] Groups - wss-kerberos-interop.doc uploaded
> >
> > Martin,
> >
> > I am still not sure why the second interop case is required.
> > I am thinking
> > that the interop focus is on how to transport keberos AP_REQ
> > within the
> > security header ans sign some elements using shared session
> > key. Both these
> > scenarios, when you look at on the wire packets do exactly
> > the same thing.
> > Isn't getting a AP_REQ from Responder's KDC as opposed to
> > Requestor's KDC
> > out side the scope of the interop?
> >
> > /t$r
> > (Ramana Turlapati)
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> > To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
> > Cc: <wss@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Ken Ballou" <krb@datapower.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 2:43 AM
> > Subject: RE: [wss] Groups - wss-kerberos-interop.doc uploaded
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
> > > Sent: 18 November 2004 02:28
> > > To: ageller@microsoft.com
> > > Cc: wss@lists.oasis-open.org; Ken Ballou
> > > Subject: Re: [wss] Groups - wss-kerberos-interop.doc uploaded
> > >
> > > > Detailed Kerberos interop scenarios
> > >
> > > Some folks here took a look at this.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > >
> > > We understand that only using a single realm makes things
> > > simpler; it may
> > > in fact reflect the most common use pattern.  Unless the interop is
> > > on-site, however, this is going to cause issues as few
> > firewalls will
> > > allow UDP traffic.
> >
> > I think we were planning to put up a server outside our firewall for
> > this interop event.
> >
> > >
> > > The primary difference between the two scenarios is who
> > > "owns" the KDC;
> > > this makes sense.  Unfortunately, the phrase used is
> > > "manufactured" which
> > > doesn't make sense, as it would seem to prevent a broad class of
> > > vendors, as well as those running the MIT reference
> > > implementation, from
> > > participating.  Perhaps "run by" is a better word?
> >
> > I'll amend the doc.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> > >
> > > /r$
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave
> > _workgroup.php.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster of the
> > OASIS TC), go to
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave
> > _workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
> OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>