@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
We need an M1.5 that has all the good stuff Ben and Avantika have added
before we move on to Claim/Metro et al
My two cents.
Drew
From: Ben Dewey ben.de...@26ny.com
based security.
Scott Golightly
-Original Message-
From: Drew Baird [mailto:drew...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:14 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
We need an M1.5 that has all the good stuff
, July 29, 2009 8:53:18 PM
Subject: RE: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
I'm not sure if I completely understand you guys, but I'm a little bit
concerned that if we freeze M1 as our Certificate version we'll be missing
out on all the recent configuration changes
[mailto:harold.c...@sun.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 10:45 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
Hello Scott,
The more I thought about it after sending my message I realized that what I
suggested would make it easier to setup
of a past release.
Kent
-Original Message-
From: Scott Golightly [mailto:scott_goligh...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:55 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
Harold,
We have the M1 milestone version
I understand that the StockTrader is moving towards claim-based identity, with
that identity provided by a service (e.g., Metro STS framework, Geneva
Framework). Definitely a good idea.
However, it would be good to keep the existing version of Stonehenge (I assume
it uses mutual certs?)
