I have to admit this is interesting is that the trust router would provide
the ability for an RP to do this.  I had managed to insert a different
entity into the picture and wonder if I am wrong or of the document is just
written odd.

 

I have an RP code that is written on top of GSS-API.  At this point I need
to be able to do a couple of different things.

 

1.        Is the RP that is my service provider going to talk directly to
the AAA proxy that is hosted with the IdP, or is it going to go through some
local AAA proxy at my side of the conversation.

2.       Since as an RP I am doing all of my talking to the AAA side of the
world via GSS-API, I assume that we need to have some set of items for
controlling how the routing is going to be done in the GSS-API interface.
We currently have a way of getting answers from IdP such as the SAML
returned (either in its entirety or in parts.)  And I assume we are going to
have some way of setting the SAML request.  However, is the GSS-API or the
RP code itself going to deal with the routing issues?

 

Jim

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 9:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [abfab] Issue 23 - Clarifications and typos

 

Hi Jim, 

In issue #23  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/trac/ticket/23>
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/trac/ticket/23 you write:

"

1.      The rules determinaion in pagraph
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/trac/ticket/2> #2 might want to refer
to levels of assurence which is one of th4e ways in figuring out some of
these issues. Note that this may need to change how the realm of the NAI is
going to be determined if you are looking ath the routing issues in
paragraph  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/trac/ticket/1> #1 

2.      Paragraph  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/trac/ticket/3> #3 is
ambigious in at least one respect. I am not clear if the question is one of
the RP relying on the IdP in roder to get a decision, or if the text is
saying if the IdP is going to agree to talk to the RP. This should be
clarified. I believe that both sides of this question need to be covered -
but in separate locations. 

"

The current version of the document uses the term "Rules determination" as a
way to indicate that the RP has to make a decision of where to route the AAA
mechanism. This term is confusing. 

I agree with you that the writeup is a bit short with regard to what are the
decision criteria. In fact, there is a separate document (which is not yet a
working group item) that discusses these aspects in much more detail, see 

 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-abfab-multihop-fed-02>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-abfab-multihop-fed-02

I suggest to reference that document. 

I agree that the LoA may have an impact on the routing, particularly when it
comes to the broader question of assessing the operational security of some
of the providers. 

Here is paragraph #3:

   Rules determination covers a broad range of decisions about the

   exchange.  One of these is whether the given RP is permitted to talk

   to the IDP using a given federation at all, so rules determination

   encompasses the basic authorization decision.  Other factors are

   included, such as what policies govern release of information about

   the principal to the RP and what policies govern the RP's use of this

   information.  While rules determination is ultimately a business

   function, it has significant impact on the technical exchanges.  The

   protocols need to communicate the result of authorization.  When

   multiple sets of rules are possible, the protocol must disambiguate

   which set of rules are in play.  Some rules have technical

   enforcement mechanisms; for example in some federations intermediates

   validate information that is being communicated within the

   federation.

I agree with you that the writeup is confusing. I believe it needs to take
some of the work we did afterwards, such as with the document I mentioned
above, into consideration. 

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

Reply via email to