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: [ws-rx] FW: Preference for STR-based solution to identifying Tokenused to protect a RM Sequence

Gilbert Pilz wrote:

>Forwarded from Hal .
I have a few questions on this email below

Tom Rutt

> .
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hal Lockhart 
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:14 PM
>>To: Gilbert Pilz
>>Subject: Preference for STR-based solution to identifying 
>>Token used to protect a RM Sequence
>>Having looked at the latest proposal from Oracle, using the 
>>usage label, as well as their slide deck relating to 
>>implementation issues, I still believe the STR-based approach 
>>proposed by IBM & MSFT, is superior.
>>1. The STR approach will not require that existing WSS logic 
>>be altered.
>>2. The STR approach allows a variant of the same solution to 
>>be used when a Security header is not present, i.e. when 
>>SSL/TLS is used.
Gil's proposal for this works with either Oracle or Msoft approach,  I 
am confused about this statment.

>>3. The usage label approach in my view entangles the 
>>processing of the security and RM layers, whereas the STR 
>>approach permits cleaner layering. In particular, the 
>>Security layer will have to know what portions of the message 
>>constitute an RM sequence and thus require protection.
After the sequence is set up, I see both proposals as being identical.  
How can the security layer not get involved in both approaches for
determining which sequence a message is part of?

>>4. I don't believe the usage label approach can easily handle 
>>multiple services, sequences and tokens without introducing 
>>additional ad hoc rules.
>>The slides provided Oracle presume a particular and in my 
>>view peculiar implementation. In particular the logic to 
>>handle signatures protecting RM sequences will be different 
>>from that of applications and other services using 
>>signatures. The analysis only shows one step (create 
>>sequence) in the entire process, omitting steps such as 
>>secure conversation setup and sequence transmission. As 
>>mentioned above, it appears that the security layer will be 
>>required to identify what elements must be protected when 
>>transmitting a sequence.
>>I acknowledge that the STR-based approach requires making use 
>>of the schema defining the STR, but I expect this to be 
>>stable and widely known and thus able to be used in a 
>>"canned" way. Thus I am not concerned about this issue.

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

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