Re: Re: Beepcore-java-users digest, Vol 1 #76- 8 msgs

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 16:55, Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Kress wrote:
> > I am more interested in situations where the profile already exists and
> > the application designer wishes to layer security/authentication under
> > it.  This would allow the security layer to exist without the profile
> > having to expressly know the security is there.
> 
> Right. This can already be done for TLS. Otherwise, you're saying everyone
> with credentials on the server can run all the operations via this profile
> identically. I don't think that's actually going to be too common.
> 
> Putting a call in the start routine that says "is my configuration flag set?
> If so, is the user name non-empty? If so, go ahead" makes sense. The profile
> is still going to have to generate a profile-specific message denying
> permission to open the channel.

So I guess it does make more sense to have a full set of utilities to
allow a profile to get as much information about the credentials and
encryption available (or active) in a session and then leave the rest up
to the profile.

.... OK I have another question that this discussion has raised.  When
exactly does a TuningProfile warrent a session reset and resending of
greetings?  Does it corresond only with the encoding change, in the
example of TLS?  Can any TuningProfile mandate a greeting exchange after
establishment as long as that is specified in the specification of the
profile?

Thanks,

--Kevin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA9UfgCaosyXJKUkDIRAoLRAKCE7MHCBjC7C6n02Ktt8hnPBNGvaQCeM/oh
kybH9eip509aXPkRo0wDBl4=
=M9s4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----