OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: FW: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124


IMHO, RM and WSS somehow have to be aware of each other in any of the proposals as the slides [1] show (e.g. in both proposals the Security Processor has to know what portions of the message constitute an RM sequence to sign it, see step 3/slide 2 and step 5/slide 5).
 
The central question in this regard is: How tight is this coupling in terms of interactions between these layers and knowledge of each others arifacts? This is what our proposal is all about.
 
- Martin
 
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200607/msg00067.html


From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2006 14:52
To: Raepple, Martin
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: FW: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

I don't know of any implementations of WSS that do that nor do I see this in the processing rules for WSS, as WSS now has to know that it has to keep handles for STRs. Also the RM processing is now aware of WSS

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Inactive hide details for "Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>"Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>


          "Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>

          07/13/2006 06:27 AM


To

Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS

cc

<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

Subject

RE: FW: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

I don't follow your concern here. Maybe the pseudo-code for step 5 / slide 3 is misleading. All it says is: RM processor asks the Security Processor to return an abstract handle for the token that is referenced by the STR with Usage attribute set to the value ".../SequenceToken" in the WSS Header. IMHO, this simple operation does not violate any of the WSS processing rules and non-normative App. D in WSS is neutral wrt @Usage.

- Martin


From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2006 23:48
To:
Raepple, Martin
Cc:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: FW: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

You have seem to require changes in every WSS stack with step 5, this is not acceptable.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Inactive hide details for "Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>"Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>

                  "Raepple, Martin" <martin.raepple@sap.com>

                  07/12/2006 02:24 PM

To

<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject

FW: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

All,

as an informal supplement to our proposal, please find a technical
analysis of the different processing models behind the current proposals
wrt. issues 122 - 124.

I'd also like to propose some time on the agenda of our call this week
to discuss these slides in the context of the security issues.

Thanks and regards,
Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Prateek Mishra [
mailto:prateek.mishra@oracle.com]
Sent: Montag, 10. Juli 2006 21:27
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org; Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Revised proposal #2 for i122 - i124

Marc,

Attached to this message you will find an alternative solution proposal
that meets the requirements for i122-i124. The proposal is co-authored
by SAP and Oracle. The proposal is expressed as a diff over your
original proposal.

We believe that our proposal has certain advantages over the original
proposal. These include:

(1) Supports a more flexible interaction model (architecture) between RM

and the Security layer; RM layer does not have to process or communicate

security artefacts such as STRs. All required STRs are found within the
SOAP message security header.
(2) Is based entirely on the OASIS WSS standard.
(3) Provides a standard pattern which may be re-used for other
application protocols as it is based upon profiling the STR usage
attribute.
(4) Has no additional impact on SecurityPolicy beyond that found in the
original proposal.


Thanks,
prateek mishra

> This update is easy to understand but includes some important tweeks
> that have been discussed on the list. Redlines are from the last
> revision of this proposal posted on June 21^st .
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00164.html
>
> First the observation Sanjay made that the header does not make any
> sense as mU=false has been addressed, the header now must be mU=true.
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00259.html
>
> I also added a reference to the SC section (I used the contributed
> version rather than the SX TC editor draft) that describes the use of
> an STR in a message body to address Prateek's concern that the RX TC
> not invent new mechanisms. The concern Gil mentioned that there should

> be advice to favor a message independent reference over a local
> reference has also been added.
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200607/msg00035.html
>
> Other than that I corrected a few 2119 terms that were not in caps.
>
> (Sorry if this is a dupe, I forgot the subject line and the OASIS
> mailer said it bounced)
>

[attachment "Processing models.ppt" deleted by Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM]



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]