Microsoft Word Master master doc

Discussion 
7.1
 
Introduction 
In this chapter we will compare the evaluation of the four TMMS Service designs. 
7.2
 
Security 
7.2.1
 
Service is available for legitimate use and sustains Denial of Service 
attacks 
None of the services implements any intrusion detection. The IMS based design is the 
most robust of them since the S-CSCF filters access for it. 
7.2.2
 
Data is not altered during transmission 
Both the IMS and the OSA Parlay X based designs provides data integrity on the data 
transport. 
It is possible to explicitly add such a feature in the other designs too. 
7.2.3
 
Sender and receiver confirms that they are who they claim to be 
The GPRS, OSA API and OSA Parlay X services all builds a relationship of trust with 
the TMMS PR as the root. Clients must trust that the TMMS PR has successfully 
authenticated the other party. 
On the other hand IMS authenticates all parties who want to communicate on the 
network. This is a better end-to-end approach then the rest of the designs. 
7.2.4
 
Only authorized users get access to the service 
All of the designs use some kind of user store to authorize the clients. The IMS based 
service utilizes the IMS user store for this purpose, but it could use a custom user store 
like the other designs. 
In some service deployment scenarios it may be important to be able to use a custom 
user store so the service can easily integrate with e.g. an enterprise's user store. 
7.2.5
 
Only sender and the intended destination part is able to know the 
content of the message 
The services provide the same level of support as in 7.2.2 here. All of them 
can
provide 
confidentiality, but it is only the IMS and OSA Parlay X frameworks which provide 
confidentiality by default.