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] proposal to address issue 140

Sequence spoofing is possible, but hopefully solved with proper
application of the security countermeasures.
The other possibility is a bad implementation.
Should an invalidSequence actually occur, then we do not have a reliable
transfer with consistent sequence state knowledge on both sides of the
transfer.  invalidSequence is not far from DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:01 PM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: Bob Freund-Hitachi; [WS-RX]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

Doug Davis wrote:
> Bob,
>   for InvalidAck - should it really close the sequence?  Since Acks
> just informational I'm not so sure they should initiate the closing
> of a sequence even when they have bad data - I'd prefer to let the 
> receiver of the InvalidAck fault make that decision for itself ( see 
> 5.1.3).

Yes, I see your point about seq spoofing. Agree.

>   for seqClosed - I don't think the "action upon receipt" should be to

> terminate - I think 'close' would be more appropriate.

Makes sense.

> btw - there were changes to the expires text in the pdf - I'm assuming

> those were left over from other other work and not related to this,

Not sure which changes you are talking about.
The only changes are in section 4 and in section 3.4.
Note that the PDF uses WD-15 as the base.

> -Doug
> *"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>*
> 07/27/2006 05:59 AM
> To
> 	"[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> Subject
> 	[ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
> Anish has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal to 
> address issue 140.
> While preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which
> enumerate below:
> Sequence Terminated Fault:
> There is no text that details under what conditions a sequence 
> terminated fault might be raised other than mention of a vague
> error".
> One way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in 
> section 4, however it is more concise to represent these in the state 
> tables of appendix D were normative.
> Unsupported Selection
> This fault description deserves elucidation
> Thanks
> -bob[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-issue140.pdf" deleted by Doug 
> Davis/Raleigh/IBM]

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