I said something along these lines at QCon last week and got some strange looks. I’m happy to see that Don Box is saying its quite important as well. People may takes digs at the complexity of the WS-* specs, but security is damn complex and the WS-SX specs are pretty quite good. If you start looking for equivalent functionality in the Just Use HTTP world you won’t find any.
Sam Ruby has chimed in as well, but I’m not sure what his point is - its a little too terse for me. Maybe he’s hinting that some could write a more RESTful binding. Or that its not in their interest to use WS-SX because its too complex.
Maybe the question we need to ask is how do we do WS-SX related stuff over Just HTTP? Mark Pilgrim did a little work on WSSE, but I don’t think thats sufficient. I’m not sure all the WS-Security token stuff can be mapped to HTTP headers. I’m also not sure its worthwhile trying to make WS-Trust into a more RESTful service other than aesthetics. I don’t see any potential for GET operations in those specs which is where HTTP adds a lot of value.
Which means we might just want to keep WS-Trust around. Kind of like how Infocard already does. Which brings us back to: how do we use WS-Security tokens - username/passwords, saml tokens, tokens from WS-Trust, etc - with HTTP resources? Someone is going to have to sit down and figure this all out.
(Hopefully this makes sense - I am not a WS-Trust expert. But I take comfort in the fact that maybe only 3 or my readers even know what it does. If thats you: I threaten to ban your comments if you expose me! :-))