- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:19:53 -0800
- To: <tom@coastin.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "Srinivas, Davanum M" <Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Um, wouldn't the wrapped problem "solve" this by hiding the security stuff in a place where the SOAP security processor can't find it? And thus we'd have to define another WS-Addressing-specific security processing model. Likewise we'd have to define all other aspects we're currently relying on the SOAP processing model for, such as mustUnderstand, targeting to intermediaries, and ordering of headers. I should probably wait for Gudge on this since WS-Security is outside my comfort zone, but it seems to me that if wrapping implies that something other than the SOAP processing model handles the security, we already have that possibility with the current design. Wrap your security refP's yourself: <wsa:To> <wsa:Address>urn:example:bar</wsa:Address> <wsa:ReferenceProperties> <my:AppLevelSecurityHeader> <wsse:Security ... > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rutt > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 6:25 PM > To: Rich Salz > Cc: Srinivas, Davanum M; public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: Problems with the SOAP binding > > > The "wrapper" proposals for refPs would not allow this "problem" to > occur. > > It seems the "feature" of top level refPs as headers is full of > problems. > > The "wrapped" wss:RefPRops or wsa:To headers could be read by > intermediaries, > they just would not be top level headers. > > Tom Rutt > Fujitsu > > Rich Salz wrote: > > >Yes, if you relax the rules for opacity, and allow the client to > >do special processing when required, then the client can "merge" > >the two ws-security messages (one in the refp and one it generates). > > > >So yes, since the current SOAP binding is "broken," this change to > the > >SOAP binding will address the issue. As I said on the call (and in > >email), I'd want Gudge's opinion. > > > >It'll be interesting to see how to violate opacity. :) > > /r$ > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > >
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:20:41 UTC