Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Willingness based on Trust discussion

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

On May 13, 2009, at 4:22 AM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:

> I have just three notes but prefer not using this computer for file  
> detachmentSorry for the inconvenience. So, here they are:
>
> 1) in the section Background: From SOA-RM:  The initiator in a  
> service interaction MUST be aware of the other parties  I think  
> there should be party because there are only two participants in  
> each individual interaction. If we also consider a broadcast-like  
> interaction, awareness about other parties is OPTIONAL, not MUST.
>
The intent here is at some point one participant needs to be aware of  
the other to initiate the interaction.  How that awareness is  
accomplished is not specified.

> 2) in the section Inputs for SOA-RA:  Although the objective of any  
> SOA interaction is no Risk  I think that this is not necessary  
> correct; I have never heard about such objective as no Risk, it does  
> not exist as well as absolute security. I propose the following:  
> interaction is minimal Risk  or  interaction is acceptable Risk
>

Agreed.  Life is risk.  The intent is to mitigate risk or only take  
risks when they are outweighed by the expected/desired rewards.

> 3) in the section Inputs for SOA-RA:  Although the SOA-RM states,  
> policies may be documented in the service description, in fact they  
> can be established at any time in the SOA conversation and at any  
> level of the IP Stack (e.g. SSL with both Server and Client  
> Certificates)  I do like this line of thoughts; to continue it we  
> can say something like: Policies established during the SOA  
> conversation MUST be included into the service contract (in addition  
> to and/or instead of the policies identified before the SOA  
> conversation).
>

The intent is to use service description to inform others what are the  
default policies if no attempt is made to agree otherwise.  The  
example I gave today was I say I want policy A but am willing to  
accept policy B.  You may tell me you accept policy B but prefer  
policy C.  The eventual agreement is part of the execution context.

> Plus, SSL with both Server and Client Certificates does not seem to  
> me as a policy but rather as a result of the policy application. The  
> policy in this case might be formulated as Communication between  
> Server and Client must use SSL with both Server and Client  
> Certificates
>
> - Michael
>
> ________________________________________
> Subject: Willingness based on Trust discussion
> 	From: "David E. Ellis" <dellis@sandia.gov>
> 	To: "'Ken Laskey'" <klaskey@mitre.org>,"'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com 
> >
> 	Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:01:18 -0600
> ________________________________________
> Title: Willingness based on Trust discussion
> Ken, Rex
> Attached is a preliminary discussion of Trust.  I feel we need more  
> words but please review for tomorrows meeting.  I will try to attend  
> but I am in a IUBIP conference.
> Dave <<...>>
> <Trust section.doc>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508