[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]Re: [Project-Proposal]<Original>FreeGate

From: Khen Ofek
Subject: [DotGNU]Re: [Project-Proposal]<Original>FreeGate
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:44:33 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628


I wrote:

Description: This project will define and implement a general
interface for web services. Authentication will be treated
like a web service.

Take a look at the initial design at : <>

I want to explain my underline ideas regarding FreeGate.
I have defined FreeGate interface to be an abstract interface. This interface should be self contained (i.e. it should define all the concepts that we use inside FreeGate system). If I understood correctly this is what Barry calls spec proposal After we will decide on such an abstract interface we should implement it using binding to known (and future) forms of communication systems. This can be called a project proposal (i.e. a project will define the binding and will implement the abstract interface on specific platforms using this binding).

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:


First, at first glance, this seems to overlap with the RLS and Tokens
documents in some areas.  I'd suggest that you look at those two
documents and try to fit your spec into that general ideology.  Of
course, if something doesn't seem to fit quite right in those documents
to you, please post about the issue in the address@hidden list.
I want to try to specify the connections between FreeGate and RLS+Tokens specs: As I see it we can define a binding of FreeGate inteface to the RLS framework.
For example :
FreeGate's ServiceID will be the string |<DotGNU Service>| in RLS.
GateProtocol for RLS will be defined as the pair : <"RLS",host name>. I mean that AccessMethod = "RLS" and AccessData=host name.
FreeGate's UniqueID will be the username in RLS.
Lets look at the exmaple in the FreeGate document:ServiceID="login", GateRoles={"PasswordGate","Client"}, Data=Password (a string) A request for the login service to a service provider that have the ability to talk RLS can be: rls://address@hidden/login?RLS, <host name for PasswordGate>,<my Password> now the service provider will have to contact the PasswordGate to "validate" the user:
We can also call the service provider using PasswordGate of SELF to indicate that the service provider should validate the user internally:
rls://address@hidden/login?SELF,<my Password>
I am sure we can define a formal binding once the FreeGate and the RLS specs will be finalize. The Tokens spec is a way to pass data between clients and servers. Because the FreeGate interface is an abstract interface and the Tokens method is a general way to pass data it is very simple to define binding of the Data in FreeGate to Tokens.

Because RLS+Tokens is a general communication and data framework it should not be too difficult to bind the abstract FreeGate interface to this framework. But the RLS+Tokens is new framework which is not implemented yet. For that reason I think that first we should define binding of FreeGate to more established ways of communications and if we find them unsatisfactory then we can go to RLS+Tokens.
For exmaple : why not define binding of FreeGate to standard CGI interface?
Note that the RLS interface is very similar to CGI.
The request will be something like that :,<host name for PasswordGate>,Client,<my Password> And then we need to implement a simple CGI script that the web masters can use with current framework (servers, communication protocols etc.)

Khen Ofek

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]