Legacy Issue Number: 4321
Source: Adiron, LLC ( Polar Humenn)
If the ServiceConfigurationSyntax identifier is a 0, the specification
says that the contents of the associated ServiceConfiguration is an ANS.1
Encoded version of a GeneralNames construct.
It is not specified what a conforming client implementation does when it
encounters this type of privilege authority. What is the conforming
behavior of a client?
If there is no conforming behavior, I believe the definition of
CSIIOP:SCS_GeneralNames should be removed from the specification, as there
is nothing "interoperable" about it, and this specification is an
As a remedy to this situation we should probably use a resolution of the
VMCID solution sought after in issue 4268, and let that Vendor specify it
in their specification (i.e. does EJB have a use for this?), when there is
a specification for it.
The ServiceConfigurationSyntax identifier of 1 specifies that the
ServiceConfiguration is a GSSExported name.
This one has a bit more use than 0, as the contents of a GSS exported name
construct can imply a lot, such as the protocol, the format of the token,
and a specification of where to get the authorization token.
So, the specification should state the specific OIDs that are understood
by a conforming CSS, and where to find the specification of the conforming
behavior of each OID.
Obviously there are no OID specified (yet), but there might be in the
future. It would be nice to know where to look, or otherwise remove the
definition of SCS_GSSExportedName from the specification.
Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 24 May 2001 04:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
close no change
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT