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

RE: D-AG006 Security

From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:07:15 -0800
Message-ID: <C153D39717E5F444B81E7B85018A460B081B2744@ex-sj-5.digisle.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
[snip]
> Perhaps we should define a requirement to specify quality of 
> service, which
> would include security, transactions, reliability, etc.

QoS is a measurement.  
It's not an architectural function, thus security 
can't be a part of it.  The two are apple and orange IMHO.
QoS is meaningful only (mostly?) in cases where success can
be measured in a range of values, say 1 to 100. Say, if your
SLA guarantees 99.999% uptime, then you get some rebate
from your service provider for services below par.  
In security, it's either 0 (for failure, any failure)
or 100 for success; but one can hardly claim 100 due to a
negative-deliverable argument, which says: "security is a
negative deliverable."  (I've borrowed the term "negative
deliverable" from Jeff Schiller, a Security Area Director
in IETF, who once said (and I paraphrase here): "In security,
you work towards a negative deliverable -- you don't know
if you have it (i.e. security achieved) until you know
you don't!")

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
===================================================

> 
> 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 20:40:02 GMT

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