Re: [higgins-dev] Re: Redirecting Bandit STS efforts to Higgins

[Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The provider generates (and potenially cancels, validates) the outbound 
token - regardless of inbound credential token. So far we have always only 
used the SAML provider.

higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/23/2007 06:48:52 PM:

> I guess this is where I would like a better understanding of the 
> internal STS architecture.  When you say "SAML provider", I assumed 
> you were referring to an "outgoing" security token type that goes 
> out in the RSTS (SAML vs. Kerberos vs. something else), as opposed 
> to an "incoming" credential type that comes in the RST (SAML, 
> username/password, etc.).  There are two extension projects:
> 
>    org.eclipse.higgins.sts.extensions.samltoken
>    org.eclipse.higgins.sts.extensions.usernametoken
> 
> that would seem to me to refer to incoming credential types that 
> come in the RST, not outgoing RSTS token types.  I guess I am basing
> this on my understanding that there is an outgoing SAML token type, 
> but not an outgoing usernamepassword token type - I'm not sure what 
> that would mean.  Hence, I assumed these projects primarily referred
> to different handlers for the kinds of credentials that can come in the 
RST.
> 
> However, I can see in the samltoken project, in the "...
> /SAMLToken/IssueHandler.java" source file, that you handle both 
> username/password and self-issued SAML credentials.  That leaves me 
> wondering what the purpose of the usernametoken project is.  Is it 
> now no longer needed? or is it a placeholder for future work? -- 
> Sorry to be so dumb about this ... just trying to get a better 
> understanding of the internal architecture of the STS...  I would 
> appreciate any clarification you can give me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> >>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/23/2007 2:40 PM >>>
> The SAML Provider is the only implemented provider that gets claims from 

> IdAS right now. Eventually other providers will need to do the same 
thing.
> That is why I'd architected it the way it was before (framework gets the 

> DigitalSubject without specifying specific claims - then specifying all 
> known claims when that stopped working - now framework does not get the 
> DigitalSubject, then provider does).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Daniel Sanders" <dsanders@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/23/2007 10:38:22 AM:
> 
> > Thanks Mike. -- I did have a followup question on #2 (PPID claim 
> > handling).  This should be independent of SAML provider, so I'm not 
> > sure what you mean here.  All providers should do it this way, 
> > should they not?  Am I misunderstanding what you mean by SAML 
> > provider?  Could you clarify this?
> > 
> > I am also putting this particular e-mail out on the dev list - minus
> > the other discussion about contributing to the STS.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > >>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/23/2007 8:22 AM >>>
> > "Daniel Sanders" <dsanders@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/22/2007 03:45:49 
PM:
> > 
> > > The term "fully implemented" implies a lot more than you are 
> > > allowing for.  It includes major and minor bug fixes, reliability 
> > > fixes, scalability fixes, etc., etc.  It's stuff that benefits ALL 
> > > users of the STS.  There is a lot of stuff in the STS that people 
> > > are VERY interested in, that ought to be in the STS, that is not 
> > > going to be specified in a high-level WS-Trust document.  We need to
> > > collaborate about these things, including submitting patches and/or 
> > > committing changes, bug fixes, etc. directly.  We would like to be 
> > > able to help with these things.  We would like a task list or to-do 
> > > list that everyone can help out with - as is common with most other 
> > > open source projects.
> > > 
> > > Examples of things that have recently been requested are as follows:
> > > 
> > > 1) Some restructuring of the code modules.  See my e-mail, and 
> > > Mike's response - both out on the higgins-dev list if you are 
watching 
> 
> > it: 
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01607.html
> > 
> > Allow 1 STS Core to be used by N STS Bindings - this is checked in 
today 
> 
> > (you can now pass a configured STS instance into the binding configure 

> > method and get the configured STS instance from a binding).
> > 
> > > 2) A change in how PPID claims are handled.  See http://wiki.
> > > eclipse.org/index.php/Milestone_0.7 under the heading "IIW Reference
> > > Application Post Mortem"
> > 
> > PPID handling - this has been how the SAML provider works since the 
F2F.
> > 
> > > 1. The STS needs to give special handling to the 
> > > privatepersonalidentifier claim. The document, A Guide to 
> > > Integrating with Information Cards and Windows CardSpace v1.0, says 
> > > the following: "To enable an identity provider that supports the 
> > > PPID claim type to be able to always produce a consistent claim 
> > > value, Windows CardSpace includes the extension element ic:
> > > ClientPseudonym/ic:PPID in the RST request. It contains the result 
> > > of applying a hash function to a relying party identity and optional
> > > user-supplied entropy to produce an opaque yet consistent reference 
> > > for the relying party. If the issued token contains the PPID claim, 
> > > this value is to be used as the basis. The IP/STS may use this value
> > > as is or as an input seed to a custom function to derive a value for
> > > the PPID claim." The STS should look for this ClientPseudonym/PPID 
> > > element whenever the RST requests the personalprivateidentifier 
> > > claim, and at the very least, return that value for the claim. 
> > > 3) A change in how the STS determines what claims to ask for from 
> IdAS. 
> > See: 
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01541.html.
> > 
> > Ask for specific claims when calling getDigitalSubject - this is 
checked 
> 
> > in today (I still feel that this is an LDAPism and would like to 
discuss 
> 
> > whether getDigitalSubject is expected to provide dynamic read-write 
> access 
> > via an to the DigitalSubject or whether its expected to provide a 
static 
> 
> > cached copy of the Digital Subject.
> > > 
> > > Mike may have already worked on some of these, perhaps all of them. 
> > > I haven't checked for the past few days.  I am just showing you that
> > > there are things that need tweeking, adjusting, refactoring, etc. - 
> > > that have little or nothing to do with the high-level WS-Trust 
> > > architecture.  These kinds of requests come up somewhat regularly, 
> > > and we anticipate that more will happen.
> > 
> > I also am waiting for the change to the IdAS described here: 
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg01601.html
> > 
> > > Daniel Sanders
> > 
> > <snip rest of 
discussion...>_______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev