RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG - AG006

> > AG006 addresses the security of web services across
> > distributed domains and
> > platforms

W.r.t. AG006, we need to address transport-, message-, 
and application- level security for web services. 


This does not imply that we split the security objectives 
into three sub-areas necessarily though; it implies we 
define the principal components of web services security 
and their relationships with other elements of a web 
services system (transaction, routing, registry, auditing, 
etc.)


---Zahid


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:49 AM
To: Sandeep Kumar; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG



Splitting sec into Message and Transport levels has one disadvantage
I can think of: extra work.

E.g. a connection between A & B conducting WS transactions requires:
confidentiality, authentication, (mutual) authorization, integrity,
and non-repudiation.  The five requirements can be satisfied by using
XML-sig messages over TLS with client authentication.  In this case,
XML-sig is at Message level; and TLS is at Transport level.  Splitting
the sec work into two levels will necessitate extra work to define some
glue between the two levels.

Of course there may be advantages in splitting Ag006.  (What may they be?)
I'd like the group to consider the above while deliberating to split
or not to split.

Cheers,

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandeep Kumar [mailto:sandkuma@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:56 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
> 
> 
> A good compilation!
> 
> I think AG006 should be split into Message Level Security and 
> Transport
> Level Security.
> Cheers,
> 
> Sandeep Kumar
> Cisco Systems
> sandeep.kumar@cisco.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:43 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:02 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: Carroll, Tom
> > Subject: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
> >
> Thanks for doing this, it is an excellent "strawman".  Let me
> take a few whacks at it ... If I don't mention something,
> it means I generally agree with the point as written.
> 
> >
> > AG001 ensures the interoperability of web services software
> > products from
> > different implementors based on well-defined standards
> 
> Isn't that a pretty ambitious goal for a "reference architecture"?
> I would think that only the *designs* of software could be
> consistent in that they refer to the same concepts e.g.,
> "a Web service endpoint" in the same way.
> 
> > AG005 provides simplicity and ease-of-use that does not impose high
> barriers
> > to entry for users of web services
> 
> Again, I just don't see how a "reference architecture" could
> hope to do this.
> 
> > AG006 addresses the security of web services across
> > distributed domains and
> > platforms
> 
> Here, we need to be more specific about what "security means."
> 
> >
> > AG007 is reliable, and stable, and whose evolution is
> > predictable over time
> 
> I'd suggest that there's no point in mentioning what we cannot
> control.  If we do a good job on the other goals, and
> implementers find it useful, it will be evolve in a 
> predictable manner.
> If not, it will end up in the bitbucket of history, end of story.
> 
> >
> > AG008 is coherent and consistent in its definition
> 
> The highest priority, IMHO.
> 
> >
> > AG009 is aligned with the semantic web initiative at W3C and
> > the overall
> > existing web architecture
> 
> I'd suggest that the point is to come up with coherent architecture
> for web services that uses what is valuable from the semantic web
> initiative and web architecture principles, but doesn't treat them
> as formal constraints.  It is possible (HIGHLY unlikely, IMHO) that
> a coherent and consistent web services architecture could "violate"
> some of the web architecture principles as we think we understand them
> today.  To constrain this group too heavily by the current 
> understanding
> views on the subject could lead to some quasi-religous 
> debates rather than
> a two-way dialog to clarify both the web architecture and web services
> architecture in a fruitful way.  A casual glance at the 
> xml-dist-app or
> xml-dev archives should give one reason for caution on this subject.
> And a casual glance at the trade press this week should give us pause
> about formally tieing the web services and semantic web activities
> together!
> 
> >
> > AG011 is consistent with the existing web and its
> > heterogenous environment
> > and distributed architecture to the greatest extent possible.
> 
> Another EXTREMELY high priority goal IMHO.
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 20:10:30 UTC