RE: "Onion model" explained

I would agree with Hal's position, but concede that AuthN *can* have a
purpose on it's own.  I think the issue is that it's hard to separate
them as proposed.  Perhaps we could move AuthZ to layer 1, or if that
makes layer 1 too "crowded", move confidentiality to 2 and leave
AuthN/AuthZ in 1?

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Darran Rolls                      http://www.waveset.com

Waveset Technologies Inc          drolls@waveset.com 

(512) 657 8360                    

--------------------------------------------------------

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:48 PM
To: Hal Lockhart; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: "Onion model" explained

 

Hal,

 

Besides playing auxiliary roles for Conf, Integrity, Authz, etc,

Authentication can by itself be of some value to applications.

E.g. Applications Alice and Bob communicate online.

Alice only cares that Bob is really what he claims he is, and nothing
else,

i.e. conf, integrity, auditing, etc are of no concern to them both.  How
would

Alice go by accomplishing that?  She asks whoever claims to be Bob

to present her a CA signed certificate; verifies it; and accepts or
rejects 

the claim accordingly.  In practice, this may be done by Alice as a

TLS client asking its server for a certificate, and negotiating only

for a null ciphersuite.  Secured heartbeat notifier are one app

class that can fulfill its purpose in life using authc alone.

 

Joe Hui

Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service

==================================.

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:41 PM
To: Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: "Onion model" explained

	Apparently I am on the www-ws-arch mailing list, so you don't
have to add me explicitly. 

	With respect to the onion model, my question was not so much
what it was, as how was it relevant to the three STF objectives. This
was explained as relating to the charter requirements objective, which
answered my question.

	With respect to the priority, I know it is unreasonable to
expect to convert the world to my thinking overnight, but I will take
the opportunity to introduce my views. 

	I now firmly believe that Authorization, while a significant
technical problem, is not a fundamental service. The ONLY purpose of
Authentication is to provide inputs to other security services such as
Confidentiality, Integrity, Authorization and Audit Trail.

	For current purposes I will settle for consensus around the idea
that "Authentication without Authorization is insufficient". This is
what major end users and industry gurus have been saying for the last
five years or so.

	Hal 

	> -----Original Message----- 
	> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net] 
	> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:14 PM 
	> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
	> Cc: hal.lockhart@entegrity.com 
	> Subject: "Onion model" explained 
	> 
	> 
	> Hi all, 
	> 
	> During today's STF telcon I took an action item to 
	> explain in the mailing list what the "onion model" 
	> that we sometimes referred to in the WG's security 
	> related threads was about. 
	> 
	> So here it goes. 
	> 
	> The "Onion model," for the lack of a better term, is in 
	> essence a grouping of the WSAWG sec reqs for the benefit 
	> of prioritizing them for a phased approach in delivering 
	> our sec solutions/standards.  (The phased approach came 
	> about inconsideration of the time-to-market factor often 
	> recited in the WSAWG's discussions.) 
	> 
	> The model comprises, in descending priority: 
	> 
	>    Layer 1) Confidentiality, (Data) Integrity, Authentication;

	> 
	>          2) Authorization; 
	> 
	>          3) Non-repudiation; 
	> 
	>          4) Accessibility 
	> 
	>          5) The remainder of the WSAWG sec requirements, 
	>             including Auditing. 
	> 
	>    Note that a phase may consist of one or more laysers. 
	>    E.g. the first phase may include layer 1 only, or 
	>    layers 1 & 2, dependent upon future decisions. 
	> 
	> Cheers, 
	> 
	> Joe Hui 
	> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service 
	>