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

RE: D-AG006 Security

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:39:31 -0500
To: "Joseph Hui" <jhui@digisle.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEIKEMEBAONGDDNLEKFGEENDOAA.anne@manes.net>
We're getting way off topic for security, but ...

Reprising a theme I just used in the D-AG0016 thread, it's not within our
scope to design a web services transaction system, but we might want to
reference the OASIS BTP work. And what we (in a WG yet to be formed) ought
to do is design a standard SOAP extension (headers) that can be used to
convey BTP transaction context in SOAP messages.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Joseph Hui
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:36 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security
>
>
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:david.orchard@bea.com]
> [snip]
> > Joe,
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that you believe that the web services
> > architecture should define something in the area of two phase
> > commit for web services as a goal?
>
> Dave,
>
> No, heck no.  2PC is a mechanism for TP, and it's not
> even for sure that TP should be in our WS-Arch.
> (Recall we don't mechanisms.  They'll be left to
> the implementers.)
>
> BTW, The TP was a "while at it, ..." sidebar in my response to
> Roger on RM in security.  (I snipped out that part of the text
> while trying to keep the message more readable.  Perhaps I should
> have kept the text to keep more context for the readers.)
> Anyway, I'm not even championing for TP to be in.  But if someone
> else chooses to champion for it, then that's fine with me.
> I'm easy about this one (and RM as well).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> ===================================================
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Joseph Hui
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:49 PM
> > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > [snip]
> > > > Or are you talking about the idea of "rolling
> > > > back" a transaction if it fails ...
> > >
> > > This type of course -- one atomic operation, do all or
> > > do none -- the type that generally employs 2-phase-commit
> > > algorithms.
> > >
> > > Joe Hui
> > > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> > > =========================================
> > > >
> > > > -----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 Wednesday, 13 March 2002 11:39:38 GMT

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