ws-sandesha-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Lovett <MLOV...@uk.ibm.com>
Subject Re: RM+Security
Date Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:08:52 GMT
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