ws-sandesha-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chamikara Jayalath" <chamikar...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: RM+Security
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:07:16 GMT
Hi Jaliya, Matt, All,

The RM Spec says

"Security contexts are independent of reliable messaging Sequences.
Consequently, security contexts can come and go independent of the lifetime
of the Sequence. In fact, it is recommended that the lifetime of a security
context be less than the lifetime of the Sequence unless the Sequence is
very short-lived."

So it seems like Jaliya's point is correct. Matt, can we do some changes to
ur patch and provide this.

Chamikara


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaliya Ekanayake <jnekanayake@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 28, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: RM+Security
To: Ruchith Fernando <ruchith.fernando@gmail.com>, Matthew Lovett <
MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: Chamikara Jayalath <chamikaramj@gmail.com>, Jaliya Ekanayake <
jaliya@apache.org>, sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org, Sanjiva Weerawarana <
sanjiva@opensource.lk>

Hi Matt,

Could you please explain how can we handle long running RM sequences with
multiple SecurityTokens from the way you have suggested?

Thanks,
-Jaliya


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Lovett" <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>
To: "Ruchith Fernando" <ruchith.fernando@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chamikara Jayalath" <chamikaramj@gmail.com>; "Jaliya Ekanayake"
<jaliya@apache.org>; <sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@opensource.lk>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: RM+Security


> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your time, we seem to be having a useful discussion here.
>
> "Ruchith Fernando" <ruchith.fernando@gmail.com> wrote on 28/07/2006
> 12:29:03:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Yes ... I agree with this flow.
>>
>> But I was wondering why it is necessary to sandesha to add the
>> placeholder since anyway the security module will have to be aware of
>> the CreateSequence message?
>>
> I don't think that the security layer should be aware of the create
> sequence, and this design doesn't require it to.
>
>> For example the security module will have to block a create seqence
>> message and will have to establish a SecConv context and add  the STR
>> in the CreateSeq msg to point to the SecConv context that was
>> established. At this point we can use the message context to share the
>> toke info with sandesha.
>
> No, you create the SecConv context when I ask you for a token. If you go
> and get it right away then there is no need to interrupt the create
> sequence as it passes through the security handlers.
>
>>
>> In this case all the information for the STR is with the security
>> module. Therefore why do we need the placeholder?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruchith
>>
>
> The point of the placeholder is that it tries to allow the security module
> to compose with RM without requiring the security layer to provide special
> processing for RM messages. If we follow this approach, then other WS-*
> specs that take a similar approach to security can be implemented without
> change in the security module. My security team are more inclined to go
> for the more general approach, and don't want to put special RM handling
> into their code. After all, what if sandesha is not even engaged, or
> applied to the current message? You are doing processing that could be
> bypassed completely.
>
> Of course, if the group really wants to do it your way then I can fix it
> up by adding another IBM handler after sandesha and before security - and
> I can emulate the processing you describe there. I'd just rather not ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>

Mime
View raw message