Re: [wsrp] Anonymous User

[Nathan Lipke <nlipke@bea.com>]

True, WS-Security does not account for anonymous/guest users. SAML 
suffers from the same issue. I'm a little concerned about using a string 
for the username as it may interfere with existing username token 
implementations. Perhaps we should sign something else (the body or a 
timestamp) in the case of the anonymous user.

--
Nate

Michael Freedman wrote:

> Folks, it doesn't look like there is a formal convention in 
> WS-Security to pass an anonymous/guest user identity particularly when 
> relying on UserName Token or Username token with password.  Am I 
> mistaken?  If not I wonder if there is an accidental convention in our 
> wsrp implementations -- what if anything do you do in this regards?
>
> To be clear we are concerned about a situtation in which the consumer 
> identifies itself to the producer (via a digital signature) and wants 
> to use the UserName Token mechanism to identify the user on whose 
> behalf this consumer is making the request.  We want a known 
> form/value that (wsrp) intercepters/the security system (if it 
> supports such a concept) will map to an anonymous user/guest.  Should 
> this be (a nil) the lack of a UserName token?  A UserName token whose 
> value is ""?  A Username token whose value is wsrp:minimal?  Any of 
> these?
>    -Mike-


_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.