W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > November 2003

RE: Security requirements

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:01:05 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC903958710@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Ok, I understand the case where, as you say, WSDL might specify some security features as optional for individual messages, but I have a hard time imagining a use case where that would apply. If I expect some level of security for my Web service, why would I allow some messages not to comply with it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:52 PM
To: Ugo Corda; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Security requirements

Dear Ugo and other Choreographers,
See below for comments embedded.

Best Regards,



Tony Fletcher

Technical Advisor 
Choreology Ltd.
68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK


+44 (0) 870 7390076


+44 (0) 7801 948219


+44 (0) 870 7390077


 <http://www.choreology.com/> www.choreology.com


Business transaction management software for application coordination

Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com 

Home: amfletcher@iee.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: 21 November 2003 19:40
To: Fletcher, Tony; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Security requirements

Hi Tony,
I imagine that when you talk about "language implementation" you mean "detailed definition of language constructs".
<Tony> Yes </Tony>
I understand your point about first clearly specifying language requirements. My point was about also keeping an eye on what is already supported out there in the same policy area.  
<Tony> Agreed, I do realise that one needs to be realistic in specifying requirements and not 'require' things that you have no hope of delivering with out very good reason.  However, in general, I believe that requirements should be considered on the merits and how to implement them or even if it is possible/ practical to implement especially in a V1 specification. </Tony>
Since the policy discussions are still ongoing within the WSDL WG, I cannot guarantee that the type of abstract policies you are talking about will actually be fully supported in WSDL. All I am saying is that, IF WSDL support that type of abstract policy definitions, and IF the CDL relies on the existence of WSDL files, then it might not be necessary to duplicate the same information within the CDL itself but just rely on what WSDL already specifies.  
<Tony> This may be the core of the discussion between us.  I am saying as clearly as I can that you can not do it ALL in WSDL - by the nature of WSDL - and that is why we need a Choreography language on top of WSDL.  What you can specify in the WSDL is the mandatory security features / policies.  For instance that this Web Service always requires mutual authentication, or that confidentiality shall never be used with this web service.  Such mandatory features should not appear in a choreography description.  If a choreography description tries to override a mandatory feature then it should either be ignored (if its effect is to weaken security contrary to the mandatory policy), or generate a fault (if it is trying to demand something that is just not available).
The WSDL should also be able to state that one or more security features are optional for the web service.  So for instance it can do confidentiality but one does not have to use it on every instance of use of the web service.  These are the cases where you can use the choreography description to state exactly which messages have to be sent confidentially and which do not.  I hope this is clear.</Tony>

(image/gif attachment: image002.gif)

Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 16:02:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:14 UTC