RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG - AG006

hi all,

I tend to agree with Joe remarks, we should try to focus on completeness 

abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 3:32 PM
> To: Edgar, Gerald; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG - AG006
> 
> 
> Completeness should be a very-nice-to-have WS architectural
> quality.  (I'm not expecting arguments against it. :-)
> WS security is not complete if any of following five aspects
> is not addressed: confidentiality, authentication, authorization,
> integrity, and non-repudiation.  (See [1] for the example/use
> case I gave.)
> 
> Accessibility should also be addressed, but IMHO only in the
> form of Security Consideration, because frankly there's not much
> one can do *effectively* at the XML layer against DOS/DDOS.
> 
> Also, we can't really have a meaningful WS security discourse
> in an arch doc without first setting the premise of trust
> What's the trust model that will be most recommendable?
> I see issues such as this as more overriding in our current
> context.  We are at the goal setting stage; we have a goal;
> and the goal is good enough.
> 
> So I suggest we not get hung up on the splitting thing at this
> juncture.  Instead, in steps: 1) keep the goal as-is; 2) start
> compiling what WS-Sec issues there are; 3) determine what we
> shall and shall not address, and set subgoals accordingly.
> Only at step 3 can we have a clear vision on what and how
> to do the splitting.  
> 
> BTW, I'm withholding my judgment on whether the IETF philosophy
> and models are directly transplantable to WS-Sec, notwithstanding
> my inclination to capitalize on the good Sec works from there.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Feb/0055.html
> ======================================================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edgar, Gerald [mailto:gerald.edgar@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:22 AM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG - AG006
> > 
> > 
> > I think that breaking this into Communications and Systems 
> > security would be
> > sufficient. 
> > 
> > Systems security could in turn be addressed as message and 
> > applications
> > security. Higher level would fit this effort better so that we could
> > determine who is addressing these requirements. Security for 
> > each area would
> > then cover the confidentiality, integrity, and 
> accessibility aspects.
> > 
> > for these I use:
> > 
> > confidentiality : to protect data  against unauthorized 
> disclosure to
> > unauthorized individuals or processes. (not privacy which 
> > refers to the
> > right of someone to determine how it will interact with its 
> > environment,
> > including how much to reveal)
> > 
> > integrity : protecting against unauthorized changes to data, both
> > intentional and accidental-ensuring that changes to data are 
> > detectable.
> > 
> > availability : protection against unauthorized deletion or 
> > otherwise cause a
> > denial of access to the data or service
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Gerald W. Edgar <gerald.edgar@boeing.com> 
> > Architecture support, BCA Architecture and e-business
> > 425-234-1422
> > 
> > Mailing address:
> > The Boeing Company, M/S 6H-WW
> > PO Box 3707, Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > USA
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ahmed, Zahid [mailto:zahid.ahmed@commerceone.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 17:09
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: 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.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>