OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [security-services] Minutes and Action Items from the SSTC ConferenceCall (3 Nov 2009)

On 11/03/2009 12:21 PM, Nate Klingenstein wrote:
> SSTC Conference Call Minutes
> November 3, 2009, 12:00pm ET
> 1)  Procedural: Quorum was achieved.  Thomas will modify the minutes 
> slightly to reflect that the votes taken did include updates of 
> designated cross-references for the Holder-of-Key specification moves 
> to Committee Draft, with no objections, and the minutes as such were 
> approved.  Prateek's slides were added to the agenda, as was the 
> planned Face-to-Face meeting for next year.
Roll Call:

Voting Members
Scott Cantor Internet2
Nathan Klingenstein Internet2
Thomas Hardjono M.I.T.
Hal Lockhart Oracle Corporation
Anil Saldhana Red Hat
David Staggs Veterans Health Administration
Christian Guenther Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Thinh Nguyenphu Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Emily Xu Sun Microsystems
Tom Scavo   NCSA

Prateek Mishra Oracle Corporation

Phil Hunt  Oracle Corporation

Quorum Achieved: 10 out of 19 voting members (52%)
Status:  Prateek gains voting rights. Bob Morgan, Kent Spaulding and 
DuaneD lose voting rights

> 2)  Celebration was held for the XSPA SAML Standard for Healthcare, 
> which has been approved as an OASIS Standard.  Mike and David will be 
> speaking at RSA in March '10, including a little bit about the Standard.
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200911/msg00001.html 
> 3)  All three of Scott's documents remain waiting for attestations 
> before they can proceed to OASIS Standard.  They won't pass CS state 
> unless these attestations are received, but they can remain as CS 
> indefinitely.  Scott suggested this item be removed from future agendas.
> 4)  The updated CD's for the Holder-of-Key profiles have been uploaded 
> by Tom Scavo, and they are now ready to go to balloting by the group 
> for approval as CS.  [AI] Hal will create the ballots.
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200911/msg00014.html 
> 5)  Hal made an inquiry to Mary about whether we can remove a 
> non-normative appendix as part of an errata, but Mary would prefer 
> that we mark it as removed or non-operative.  She also noted that the 
> SSTC's communications with IANA should proceed through her.  As either 
> Scott or Bob comes up with the changes we'd like to propose for our 
> MIME type registration, we'll contact them through Mary, but there is 
> no rush since there's a minimum of six months before the next errata 
> can be issued.  We'll strike the appendix as soon as possible in 
> accordance with Mary's email.
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200911/msg00016.html 
> 6)  The Jira process has been slowed down because there's a manual 
> issuance of usernames which are not integrated with the rest of OASIS' 
> systems.  A new individual is taking over the process, and there are 
> hopes this will be faster in the future.  We do have an instance, and 
> Scott was able to log into it.  [AI] He believes the chairs need to 
> assign access permissions, as he could only create issues.  He'd like 
> to see it used as a substitute for the errata working document in the 
> future.
> 7)  Discussion of the Kerberos holder-of-key profile work occurred.  
> XSD's should be uploaded alongside the main documents to Kavi, and 
> they're considered the main authority document.  Scott prefers to 
> re-upload a fresh copy of the XSD just to have it next to the 
> documents in the repository.  Anything that is part of a standard must 
> be placed into the official OASIS repository to ensure availability 
> and compliance with IPR rules.
> There was less certainty about what an OASIS standard was able to 
> reference normatively, in particular whether a piece of a Kerberos 
> Holder-of-Key profile could be standardized through the Kerberos 
> consortium.
> This arose because Josh couldn't find a way to do XML signing using a 
> Kerberos-based mechanism, and there's a window to get it included in 
> XML Signature 1.1.  Scott believes it can be done, but he doesn't know 
> the technical details.  Thomas and Scott will discuss whether there's 
> a need to go to the W3C directly, or whether something could be 
> published by the consortium.  [AI] Hal received an Action Item to 
> check into that.
> 8)  Bob wasn't on the call to discuss the Identity Assurance profile.
> 9)  Hal didn't check on the progress of the Delegation Condition 
> Extension profile, but he'll make sure we get it going on the next 
> call.  It was sent to Mary on 16 October.  She asked for corrections, 
> and Scott issued those corrections, which Mary suggested be placed in 
> the repository as CD-02, the same name.  He sent her the links and 
> that's the last he's heard, so we believe this will progress shortly.
> 10)  Hal's porting of the Work Summary to the wiki is "in progress."
> 11)  Anil says the CS version of the Text-based Challenge/Response 
> profile will be ready by next meeting.
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200911/msg00019.html 
> 12)  Attribute Update functionality:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200911/msg00000.html 
> Nokia-Siemens had earlier suggested that we add attribute update 
> functionality to SAML.  Phil Hunt investigated the possibility and has 
> a high-level proposal that was formulated in a PowerPoint set that 
> they published yesterday.  They're building on the Nokia-Siemens use 
> cases, which are moving beyond single sign-on into the desire of 
> applications to be able to update attributes.  The slides have a 
> variety of use cases that are a little more complex than just set/get, 
> e.g. where a principal is added to a group, or values must be 
> manipulated.
> There are different approaches, including some WSDL specs in ID-WSF; 
> the question really is whether this should become a first-order SAML 
> protocol, rather than exist as a protocol built around SAML in another 
> space.  The slide deck describes a full capability that would help 
> SAML move from single sign-on to full attribute exchange at a protocol 
> level.
> Reporting, e.g. returning a set of information on a query, would be 
> desirous as well.  The scenario they think of is phone books, or 
> credential recovery, where the specific subject being searched for is 
> not known.
> They also want to see a redirect capability, so if the IdP can't do 
> the update, but knows a service that can do the update, the requester 
> can be redirected to that service.  A managed subject request, where 
> subjects are added or modified, is another feature.  There is no 
> additional delete because they believe the ManageNameIDRequest 
> terminate function will suffice for that need.
> They see this as a stepping stone towards ID-WSF, which can handle 
> discovery and routing to many providers at a higher level of 
> functionality, but the limited adoption of ID-WSF is a drawback for 
> them.  SAML might also be able to offer greater simplicity to use of 
> ID-WSF or any other suite of standards.
> Phil also thinks that, in a federated environment, governance needs to 
> be more strongly documented.  This includes some of the work 
> Liberty/Kantara did on privacy constraints that accompany data.  He 
> would like to see the trust information layered in a privacy 
> constraints added to requests and responses.  The payload is small 
> normally, generally as just a CARML declaration, which is relatively 
> lightweight because most of the information is static.  The goal is to 
> allow a provider to use this data for access controls.  Dynamic 
> constraints could also be used, such as, "I'm allowing my Social 
> Security Number to be exchanged, but you're not permitted to send it 
> on further."  These could also be WS-Policy rules documenting 
> business-level constraints that need to be documented in the 
> transaction, which are very different from the protocol-level 
> constraints we've dealt with to date.
> Prateek would like to continue the dialog and get feedback on what the 
> SSTC believes are appropriate next steps.  They would also propose to 
> try to put together a draft with some of these messages combining 
> Phil's proposal with Nokia-Siemens' proposal and publish it to the 
> SSTC as a draft submission.
> Scott holds that profiling ID-WSF is a lot more fruitful than coming 
> up with a new stack of standards, believing things like the messaging 
> model, security framework, and discovery are orthogonal in ID-WSF and 
> can be easily chopped out.  He thinks updates will immediately run 
> into ways of needing to represent the user's role in the transaction, 
> ensuring they can be a participant in such a transaction; he doesn't 
> think cart-blanche allowing services to do anything they want to a set 
> of data is permissible.  This requires a much richer security 
> framework than server-to-server security, but can be facilitated by 
> Prateek says that in many of their use cases, user involvement is not 
> essential, though he can see that there's a natural set of use cases 
> where users granting some form of delegated rights is important.  Phil 
> wonders whether it's possible to build the core protocol work of the 
> other operations to SAML, then allow things like ID-WSF actually build 
> on top of that effort to provide things like the user involvement.
> Scott agrees there's some duplication between SAML and ID-WSF, but the 
> separate layer is how exchanges are secured, particularly over a SOAP 
> binding.  In ID-WSF, those are all over the SOAP security layer, which 
> has minimal adoption and problems.  The alternative, though, is 
> reinvention of a different secure messaging framework on which to 
> layer the exchanges, which doesn't appeal to Scott very much.
> The key question is scoping and drawing the boundary to determine 
> which problems people need to address.  Since Scott sees people trying 
> to address similar problems using e.g. OAuth supporting user 
> involvement, he thinks we need to ensure that what we build is at 
> least that capable.
> It's also a sufficiently large piece of work in Scott's mind that it 
> needs several participants involved to justify all effort, so he'd 
> like to see many vendors and interested parties working with it.  
> Scott thinks this is easily as much work as SAML 1.0, and Phil shares 
> those concerns.
> We'll approve this as a work item today, but we need to agree on the 
> scope and develop sufficient participation to get this going 
> somewhere.  A paper spec is not the objective.
> [AI] Nokia-Siemens and Oracle will consult with one another, and will 
> develop a working draft or a proposal that captures some of the use 
> cases of interest and circulate that informally.  But to make progress 
> beyond that, they would need to recruit some more people and add 
> clarity about scope and forward direction, and the relationship to 
> ID-WSF would need to be carefully explored.  They'll report back on 
> their discussions on the next call.
> 13) Face-to-Face meetings have been held on an as-needed basis, and if 
> there are some good materials for discussion that would make a meeting 
> valuable, we may recruit hosts and determine some dates.  The 
> attribute management protocol may be sufficient motive to have one, so 
> long as we can get a reasonable number of people together.
> There are no OASIS annual conferences to attach such a face-to-face 
> to.  It could be done in conjunction with another Identity Management 
> industry event, but our experience is that if you go to a corporation, 
> they have good white boards, speakerphones, and meeting rooms, and 
> it's far cheaper than using bad infrastructure at a hotel.
> The chairs are open to offers to host such an event, if the hosts have 
> topics they would like discussed.
> Next meeting will be on November 17, 2009.
> [AI] Hal will create the ballots.
> [AI] Thomas and Hal will investigate the assignment of permissions 
> within the SSTC Jira instance.
> [AI] Hal will check the rules for normative references in 
> specifications issued by the SSTC; particularly, whether they can 
> reference standards issued by e.g. the Kerberos Consortium.
> [AI] Nokia-Siemens and Oracle will consult with one another about next 
> steps for an attribute management protocol, and will develop a working 
> draft or a proposal that captures some of the use cases of interest 
> and circulate it. 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]