W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

RE: D-AG006 Security

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:01:24 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c1ca19$d70cad90$5ca7153f@amer.cisco.com>
Hi all,

	Couple of points :

	1.	Message delivery semantics - Once and Once only or at
most once or best effort - are not under security per se. They can be a
consideration in some other "bucket"

	2.	Same goes with transactions - in the strict traditional
sense (distributed transaction with roll back/commit capability) or the
new paradigm (a la BTP) with compensating trx et al.

	I think in both cases, the architecture can specify placeholders
for a web service to specify all these attributes. May be we could refer
to the appropriate disciplines/initiatives to define the actual
semantics - BTP (for distributed trx), ebXML (for Reliable messaging) et
al.

	Secure messaging would be under security.

cheers

 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
 | [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cutler, 
 | Roger (RogerCutler)
 | Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 2:28 PM
 | To: 'Joseph Hui'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Krishna 
 | Sankar; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security
 | 
 | 
 | I'm not quite sure what you mean by "transaction 
 | processing". I have heard
 | the term used in more than one way.  Is the concern 
 | essentially to have a
 | mechanism for handling stateful transactions -- for example, 
 | to carry state
 | information in the messages?  Or are you talking about the 
 | idea of "rolling
 | back" a transaction if it fails -- or possibly of initiating 
 | compensating
 | transactions? 
 | 
 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] 
 | Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:14 PM
 | To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Krishna Sankar; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security
 | 
 | 
 | > -----Original Message-----
 | [snip]
 | > Could we possibly consider putting reliable messaging into
 | > the security bucket?  
 | 
 | I don't think so.  There's no security primitives that
 | would fit the bill of reliable messaging (RM), which I sometimes
 | characterize as "layer-7 TCP" where a session between two 
 | endpoints may span
 | over several time-serialized connections, disconnections, 
 | reconnections.
 | AG006 may include securing RM, but not RM per se.
 | 
 | While at it, let me mention that if you want to include 
 | RM in WS-Arch, then you may as well not leave out 
 | transaction processing.
 | 
 | [snip]
 | > it is a natural
 | > progression of thought:  "I'm worried about who the author of
 | > the message
 | > is, whether it is distorted, and that IT ACTUALLY GETS THERE".
 |                                         
 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There no
 | security primitives that can guarantee data arrival.
 | 
 | Joe Hui
 | Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 | 
 | 
 | 
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 18:02:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT