SourceForge : artf5945: integrity protection was a MUST but confidentiality was optional?

Project: OGSA-WG Trackers > Attic > View Artifact

Artifact artf5945 : integrity protection was a MUST but confidentiality was optional?

Tracker:	Attic
Title:	integrity protection was a MUST but confidentiality was optional?
Description:	Line 285: It says “.. this Profile requires encrypted communication”. Based on prior discussions, I had thought it was agreed integrity protection was a MUST but confidentiality was optional? by Blair Dillaway
Submitted By:	Hiro Kishimoto
Submitted On:	07/08/2007 10:12 AM EDT
Last Modified:	11/12/2007 10:31 PM EST
Closed:	09/01/2007 9:53 PM EDT

	Status / Comments		Change Log		Associations		Attachments

Status
Group: *
Status:*	Closed
Category: *	SP - Secure Soap
Customer: *
Priority: *	3
Assigned To: *	Duane Merrill
Reported in Release: *
Fixed in Release: *
Estimated Hours: *	0
Actual Hours: *	0

Comments

Andreas Savva: 11/12/2007 10:31 PM EST
	Action:	Update Category set to SP - Secure Soap

Andreas Savva: 11/12/2007 10:30 PM EST
	Action:	Move Moved from tracker1648 to Attic

Hiro Kishimoto: 09/01/2007 9:53 PM EDT
	Comment:	checked.
	Action:	Update Closed set to 09/01/2007 Status changed from Resolved to Closed

Duane Merrill: 07/27/2007 12:09 PM EDT

Comment:

Changing both integrity and confidentiality to "recommended".  This meets the philosophy of allowing us to profile the various mechanisms (and how 
they are advertised/discovered) without unduly restricting the communication options available to a grid community.

E.g., There are use cases where username/token (when used in digest form) meets the requirement of a user community.

Action:

Update
Status changed from Open to Resolved

Hiro Kishimoto: 07/08/2007 10:12 AM EDT
	Action:	Create

Return

< Previous

Next >