At present the services are running on Axis1/Java + WSS4J.

Thanks,
Jamie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kaushalye Kapuruge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 08 August 2007 11:48
> To: Apache AXIS C Developers List
> Subject: Re: Error: "Key Reference Info is mismatch with policy"?
> 
> Hi Jamie,
> In Rampart/C v 0.90, we had implemented it in such a way that user can
> specify different policies for incoming and outgoing messages. But
after
> that we changed it to be compatible with other implementations, mainly
> due to the interoperability between different policy frameworks. I
also
> agree with you, having such a flexibility in configurations can be
> useful.  So we will try to introduce this behavior in Rampart/C.
> BTW, I'd like to know if possible, which kind of framework you have
used
> to deploy services? Is it Axis2/Java + Rampart/Java or any other
> implementation. (This feature is not in Rampart/J though).
> Cheers,
> Kaushalye
> 
> Jamie Lyon wrote:
> > Unfortunately the service I am interacting with requires that the
> > timestamp is included when sending a message to it, but does not
send a
> > timestamp in the response. So yes, an optional timestamp is a
> > requirement for interaction, without it I cannot do any
communication at
> > all.
> >
> > A workaround for the IncludeTimestamp case would be perfectly
> > acceptable, I don't (at least currently) require anything else to be
> > optional.
> >
> > If there's a simple way of doing this temporarily, that will be
fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jamie
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Manjula Peiris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: 08 August 2007 16:37
> >> To: Apache AXIS C Developers List
> >> Subject: RE: Error: "Key Reference Info is mismatch with policy"?
> >>
> >> Hi Jamie,
> >>
> >> Please see my comments inline.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:48 +0100, Jamie Lyon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Excellent, that's fixed that problem.
> >>>
> >>> You will have to excuse my simple questions; I've not used
ws-policy
> >>> before.
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible to specify that the client has to include a
timestamp
> >>>
> > in
> >
> >>> the sent message, but may or may not receive one back?
> >>>
> >> In the current implementation it is not possible. Because
> >> <sp:Includetimestamp> assertion is common for both sending and
> >>
> > recieving
> >
> >> messages.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Having <sp:IncludeTimestamp/> returns "[info] [rampart][shp]
> >>>
> > Timestamp
> >
> >>> is not in the message", and modifying it to <sp:IncludeTimestamp
> >>> wsp:Optional="true"/> still comes up with the same error.
> >>>
> >> In our current Security policy implementation we are not supporting
> >> wsp:Optional scenarios yet. Considerable amount of work need to be
> >>
> > done
> >
> >> to support this.
> >>
> >> Is this a frequent scenario?  We haven't encountered this when we
are
> >> interoping with other implementations. If it is a common scenario
then
> >> we can give a fix just for <sp:IncludeTimestamp> case.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> Manjula.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jamie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Manjula Peiris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> Sent: 08 August 2007 11:22
> >>>> To: Apache AXIS C Developers List
> >>>> Subject: Re: Error: "Key Reference Info is mismatch with policy"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jamie,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please check the value of <sp:IncludeToken> attribute in the
> >>>> <sp:InitiatorToken> element. If it is ,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/07/securitypolicy/IncludeToken/Always
> >
> >>> To
> >>>
> >>>> Recipient then the certificate used to signed the message is sent
> >>>>
> > only
> >
> >>> by
> >>>
> >>>> the client to server. The Client should not see it  attached as a
> >>>> <BinarySecurityToken> in the recieved message. If you want this
> >>>> <BinarySecurityToken> element to be in the recieved message of
the
> >>>>
> >>> client
> >>>
> >>>> please change the <sp:IncludeToken>  attribute to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/07/securitypolicy/IncludeToken/Always
> >
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>>> If this does not work please send the policy file you are using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> -Manjula.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:26 +0100, Jamie Lyon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm writing a client to an existing service in Axis2/C. Can
> >>>>>
> > anyone
> >
> >>>>> shed any light as to what could cause the above error message
> >>>>>
> > "Key
> >
> >>>>> Reference Info is mismatch with policy"? It appears to me as
> >>>>>
> > though
> >
> >>>>> it's saying that the namespace or something in the received
> >>>>>
> > message
> >
> >>> is
> >>>
> >>>>> not matching what is in the policy.xml. You can see the context
> >>>>>
> > of
> >
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>>> message in the snippet of the debug log below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The situation seems odd however, since as you can see from the
> >>>>>
> > sent
> >
> >>> log,
> >>>
> >>>> the message sent by the client is perfectly fine. The namespaces,
> >>>>
> >>> tokens
> >>>
> >>>> etc... all seem to match that which is received back from the
> >>>>
> > server.
> >
> >>>>> I have attached the sent and received messages, and below is a
> >>>>>
> >>> snippet
> >>>
> >>>> of the debug log:
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][shp] Process
> >>>>>
> > security
> >
> >>>> header
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Security for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> BinarySecurityToken for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Signature for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> SignedInfo for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> CanonicalizationMethod for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> SignatureMethod for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Reference for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Transforms for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Transform for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> DigestMethod for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> DigestValue for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> SignatureValue for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> KeyInfo for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> SecurityTokenReference for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Reference for EncryptedKey
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Security for Signature
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> BinarySecurityToken for Signature
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][axiom] Checking
> >>>>>
> > node
> >
> >>>> Signature for Signature
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][shp] Processing
> >>>>>
> >>> Signature
> >>>
> >>>> element.
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [Rampart][shp]Key Reference
> >>>>>
> > Info
> >
> >>> is
> >>>
> >>>> mismatch with policy
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [info]  [rampart][rampart_in_handler]
> >>>>>
> >>>> Security Header processing failed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [debug] engine.c(292) Axis2 engine
> >>>>>
> >>> receive
> >>>
> >>>> completed!
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Tue Aug  7 16:13:02 2007] [error]
> >>>>>
> >>> autogen/axis2_DataService.cpp(1236)
> >>>
> >>>> returnNode is NULL: Error code: 2 :: NULL paramater was passed
> >>>>
> > when a
> >
> >>> non
> >>>
> >>>> NULL parameter was expected
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jamie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> http://kaushalye.blogspot.com/
> http://wso2.org/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to