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

RE: D-AG006 Security

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:15:37 -0500
To: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEIKEMEBAONGDDNLEKFGEDJDOAA.anne@manes.net>
Perhaps we should define a requirement to specify quality of service, which
would include security, transactions, reliability, etc.

Although BTP, ebXML MS, SAML, and other technologies address these areas,
they don't specify how a SOAP message should relay this information (well,
ebXML does -- but most of the SOAP community doesn't pay much heed to
ebXML). If we're to enable interoperability, at some point we'll need to
form groups to define SOAP extenstions that specify how to represent this
information/context in SOAP headers.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:01 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security
>
>
> 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 19:15:49 GMT

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