RE: "Onion model" explained

Good example (the secured heartbeat thing).  Seems to me that it would be a
good thing to preserve it in the usage cases somewhere.
 
-----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
<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 
>