RE: Context proposal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:43 AM
> To: Assaf Arkin
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Context proposal
>
>
> Arkin,
>
> Continuing to respond to this particular message, you seem to be
> implying that "protocol binding"s are akin to "middleware" (this
> may be a gross exageration of your more subtle statements). Am I
> reading to much in your message?

More like 'protocol binding is something that is directed towards the
middleware'. The middleware is agnostic to what the application is doing,
the application is agnostic to what the middleware is doing.


> Regarding point 1, some of us have been contemplating introducing
> features at the abstract level. For example, you might declare
> that a given portType relies on an abstract security feature with
> certain guarantees. Bindings would map that abstract feature to a
> concrete security feature, for example via SOAP header blocks or
> a secure underlying protocol.
>
> I don't think there is a specific "feature proposal" currently on
> the table, but I expect that the PFTF will at least be giving
> some attention to this and related topics.
>
> Does this help?

Yes.

But I think we need to types of features here.

At the abstract level I would want to have a feature that requires a
security credential to be known and passed to the application
(authentication). Then I could have multiple different operations that
require this feature, so it's a more generic and reusable definition.

At the protocol level I would want a more precise feature. I may include
access control (authentication + authorization), and I may elect to use
security tokens for single sign-on for some port and not for another.

There may be a mismatch between the abstract feature and the protocol
feature. For example, in the actual header there may be a security token
that represents a prior authentication, but at the abstract level it needs
to be an actual credential.

So the protocol features need to be aware of the abstract feature it
supports and figure out how to map the data in the actual header to the data
required at the abstract level. If I created a security token then all I
have to pass around in messages is that security token, but I know the
principle and can pass that on to the application.

I am not sure what is the best way to do that. The idea of defining an input
as a set of values, some of which are described by the operation-specific
message and some of which are described by the generic/reusable feature is
appealing to me.

arkin


>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Assaf Arkin wrote:
> > Jean-Jacques,
> >
> > This is all good but still does not answer three of my concerns.
> >
> > 1. The data of interest to the application is defined in the abstract
> > operation. As I understand it, headers that are specific to the protocol
> > binding can be added in the protocol binding by referencing
> other messages.
> > Since these headers are not known at design time the application cannot
> > assume their existence!
> >
> > One solution is to add the data and feature to the abstract operation
> > definition. That will force the data to exist in any operation and all
> > protocol bindings to use that feature. Is that part of the
> feature proposal?
> >
> > 2. The data of interest to the application is typically a
> subset of the data
> > of interest to the middleware. In the example I gave, the application is
> > only interested in the identity of the sender, while the middleware is
> > interested in a variety of security information. Furthermore,
> the identity
> > is resolved from the security token which is generated by the
> middleware.
> >
> > In this particular case the application needs good understanding of the
> > header in order to extract the relevant information (security token) and
> > also needs to talk to the middleware to resolve an identity from the
> > security token (breaking the layering).
> >
> > An alternative proposal is to let the middleware do the
> resolving and then
> > pass on the value to the application. That would decouple the
> application
> > from the middleware through a generic mechanism, as opposed to
> having APIs
> > specific for resolving security context, transaction contexts,
> etc. It will
> > also allow more efficiency in the middleware.
> >
> > 3. The middleware must not remove any headers before they reach the
> > application, and while possible to build such an
> implementation, unless the
> > middleware must act in that manner it is impossible to build an
> application
> > that depends on that behavior.
> >
> > Was that point already discussed, and if so what solution was reached?
> >
> > arkin
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> >>Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:35 AM
> >>To: Assaf Arkin
> >>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>Subject: Re: Context proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>Arkin,
> >>
> >>I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but as far as SOAP is
> >>concerned, this is an implementation choice. Some header blocks
> >>will likely be processed at the middleware level, for example a
> >>header block used to implement a request-response interaction
> >>over a one-way protocol; other header blocks will be processed by
> >>the application itself, for example a validity token inserted by
> >>a payment intermediary to validate a book purchase; but, at the
> >>end of the day, where the header block is processed depends on
> >>the feature(s) being used, the provider's network (i.e. how
> >>intermediaries are deployed) and the particular vendor's protocol
> >>stack.
> >>
> >>See also my response [1] to a similar thread on ws-arch.
> >>
> >>Jean-Jacques.
> >>
> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0119.html
> >>
> >>Assaf Arkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jean-Jacques,
> >>>
> >>>It was my understanding that a header targeted at the ultimate
> >>
> >>SOAP receiver
> >>
> >>>would be processed by the WS layer (e.g. security token or transaction
> >>>context), but does not necessarily have to be passed on to the
> >>
> >>application.
> >>
> >>>At least as far as I understand it, the WS layer can change the header
> >>>possibly removing information that would be interesting to the
> >>
> >>application.
> >>
> >>>And the WS layer is under no obligation to include that
> >>
> >>information to begin
> >>
> >>>with.
> >>>
> >>>For example, the security header will contain a large set of
> information
> >>>that is of no interest to the application and can further depend on the
> >>>communication protocol (encryption protocol, token mechanism,
> >>
> >>etc). It will
> >>
> >>>also contain a minimal set of information that is of interest to the
> >>>application (in this particular example the identity of the sender).
> >>>
> >>>Asking the application to receive a complex security header and
> >>
> >>strip out
> >>
> >>>the essential bits of data seems like an overkill. That's
> >>
> >>something the WS
> >>
> >>>layer can do in a more efficient manner. Furthermore, the
> >>
> >>application would
> >>
> >>>need to look at something like WS-Security + WS-Attachment to
> >>
> >>determine if
> >>
> >>>the information is even contained in all messages, but cannot
> >>
> >>enforce the WS
> >>
> >>>to include that information. As I understand it the WS layer can decide
> >>>which features to require but without knowing what the
> >>
> >>application requires
> >>
> >>>could make the wrong decision.
> >>>
> >>>I have not looked at the WS security specs in detail, but I
> >>
> >>suspect that the
> >>
> >>>information may not even be present in the header to begin with. If the
> >>>sender is required to send its identity in every message than
> >>
> >>clearly the
> >>
> >>>application can extract that information from the header using an XPath
> >>>expression. But if the sender can establish a security token
> >>
> >>and only send
> >>
> >>>that token in every message than the application will have no way of
> >>>obtaining the sender identity from the abstract and temporary
> >>
> >>security token
> >>
> >>>contained in the header.
> >>>
> >>>On the other hand, we can define an abstract input to the
> >>
> >>application which
> >>
> >>>contains the identity of the sender and constrain the
> >>
> >>cardinality to {1,1}
> >>
> >>>or {0,1}. We can then define how that information is extracted from any
> >>>combination of headers and let the WS layer deal with the
> >>
> >>technical details
> >>
> >>>of presenting that value to the application. If the
> cardinality is {1,1}
> >>>then the WS layer will be forced to include that information, e.g. by
> >>>forcing all such services to use a given feature.
> >>>
> >>>If in BPEL/BPML I define that the application requires an 'identity'
> >>>property, that forces all WS definitions to somehow pass that
> >>
> >>information to
> >>
> >>>the application. The WS layer can use any combination of extensions to
> >>>SOAP/WSDL and even different combinations. It could extract
> >>
> >>that information
> >>
> >>>from the header, or it can extract that information from the
> >>
> >>security token
> >>
> >>>by referencing an identity passed in a previous message, etc.
> >>>
> >>>I understand this increases complexity, but it establishes a separation
> >>>between the information that is of interest to the application,
> >>
> >>the headers
> >>
> >>>that are of interest to the WS to support a particular kind of
> >>
> >>interaction,
> >>
> >>>and the manner in which the WS layer handles such information.
> >>>
> >>>arkin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> >>>>Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> >>>>Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:09 AM
> >>>>To: Assaf Arkin
> >>>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>>>Subject: Re: Context proposal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Arkin,
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not sure we need the extra complexity. SOAP header blocks are
> >>>>not just meant for intermediaries; they can also be targeted to
> >>>>ultimate SOAP receivers. It is up to the application to process
> >>>>the header block as it sees fit, whether the application is an
> >>>>intermediary or the ultimate receiver. So, as long as contexts
> >>>>can be represented as SOAP header blocks, I think we're just fine.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jean-Jacques.
> >>>>
> >>>>Assaf Arkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Are there any cases where one would want to apply a context to
> >>>>
> >>>>a body part
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>rather than a header?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Typically security contexts, transactions contexts and sessions
> >>>>
> >>>>are handled
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>by the middleware and are of no interest to the application.
> >>
> >>Information
> >>
> >>>>>that is processed by the infrastructure definitely belongs in
> >>>>
> >>>>the header.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>But I can think of cases where the application would like to
> carry that
> >>>>>information from one process to another in a manner than transcends
> >>>>>contexts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>For example, the BankService may be interested in storing the
> >>>>
> >>>>identification
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>of the user that performed the transaction (e.g. shared bank
> >>>>
> >>>>account) or the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>identification of the ATM at which it was performed (location
> >>>>
> >>>>of withdrawl),
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>to present it from a different context (e.g. the monthly statement).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The information can be duplicated in the body and header, but
> >>
> >>that means
> >>
> >>>>>that the infrastructure and application can disagree. If the
> >>>>
> >>>>infrastructure
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>successfuly identifies the user and presents a 'principal' in
> >>>>
> >>>>the context in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>which the operation is performed, being able to store that
> >>>>
> >>>>principle would
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>be useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>BPEL4WS and WSCI have a mechanism that allows information to be
> >>>>
> >>>>extracted
> >>>>
> >>>>>from the message and presented to the application or the
> infrastructure
> >>>>
> >>>>>(properties). Would it make sense to introduce a similar
> >>>>
> >>>>mechanism, allow
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>properties to obtained from both header and body, and then
> >>>>
> >>>>define contexts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>that make use of these properties? It might even be possible to
> >>>>
> >>>>use these
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>properties to convey RPC message parts as part of eliminating
> >>>>
> >>>>the message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>definition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>arkin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
>>>>>>Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:04 PM
>>>>>>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>>>>>Subject: Fault naming & context proposals
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For those of you who didn't hear it on today's call, please review and
>>>>>>comment upon Paco's fault naming proposal and Sanjiva's context
>>>>>>proposal.  We plan to discuss these proposals further on our next
>>>>>>telcon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>6.  Fault naming.  Paco suggests eliminating fault names [.1].  Some
>>>>>>  support at [.2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0045.html
>>>>>>[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0047.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>7.  Context proposal from Sanjiva [.1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0063.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 16:06:37 UTC