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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

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


Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] revised trust write-up and response to comments


Further, you trust your daughter's sense of time in getting homework done because of her track record or for some other reason...which allows you to accept the risk.


From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:27 AM
To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
Cc: Lublinsky, Boris; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised trust write-up and response to comments

Bob,

I have to disagree that “A Risk is an Unknown” pure and simple. 

I can be very aware of what the risk is and it makes it no less a risk.  My daughter wants to go to a friend's house but if she does there is a risk she will not have time to do her homework.  A very clearly understood risk with a very clear undesirable RWE.

Ken

On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:

Ken--looks reasonable so far, except for your definition of risk.  See attached.
 
Bob
 
 


From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Lublinsky, Boris
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised trust write-up and response to comments

Responses in the attached.  In general, I saw no major issues.

I accepted previous changes in side bubbles to reduce the clutter.

Ken

On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:25 PM, Lublinsky, Boris wrote:

Small comments
From: Laskey, Ken [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:47 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] revised trust write-up and response to comments
All,
The attached is a revised trust draft that incorporates pieces of Frank’s text and items for continuing discussions.  I specifically added a section on trust related to a Delegate, and I included ideas Frank included in his write-up. I specifically did not include Goal Adoption because I think it is unnecessary and confusing as currently described; my response to Frank’s Additional Comments email goes into  my rationale.  See some related comments below.
Note, I modified the Trust & Risk diagram (Figure 2) to include using Reputation for assessing Trust and Risk because otherwise Reputation is simply defined but not used.
In specific response to Frank, see <KL> as follows:
<Frank_email>
Some comments...
1.       The diagram should say that an actor participates in a joint action. You can’t participate in an action; you perform one.
<KL> 
Agree and Figure 1 now contains two variants from which we can choose.
</KL>
 2. The definition of willingness is somewhat circular.
Wikipedia uses this definition:
Willingness: the state of being willing.
Willing: Ready to do something that is not (can't be expected as) a matter of course.
Ready: Prepared for immediate action or use
However, I think that we mean something slightly different:
Willingness: an internal commitment to participate in a joint action.
<KL>
The Trusting Actor is willing to perform an action that is usually expected to be part of a Joint Action, but this can happen independent of (and certainly, prior to) Willingness on the part of other actors.
Still needed: text elaborating relationship between Joint Action and interaction.
</KL>
There is another point that I think is important for SOA:
There is a presumption of willingness based on participation in joint actions. The fact that an actor participates in a joint action may be taken as evidence that the actor was willing to do so. I.e., we do not try to model coercion in our model of willingness. This evidence of willingness ultimately becomes the foundation for non-repudiation: evidence of participation is evidence of willingness, which in turn is evidence for non-repudiation.
<KL>
My initial inclination was to agree with this, but I have reservations. Phishing is an example where participation is not willingness in terms of the actual RWE. Also, willingness is only explicit for RWE known to the Trusting Actor and not necessarily for RWE that is not publicly documented or otherwise known. Thus, the connection to non-repudiation is tenuous.
</KL>
 3. The Trust and Willingness diagram draws a trust relationship between actors. I think that they are both inherently ternary relations: trust about some action/outcome. I think that actors assess the evidence to determine their stance to risk and trust.
 We have tended to focus Real World Effect on the effects of service actions: I ask you to do something. But reputation may necessarily have a much broader basis (hearsay, government intervention, etc.)
<KL>
Agree and conveying that idea is certainly intended.
</KL>
 4. I do not think that we need to go into chains of trust. For the same reason that we don't do much of service composition.
<KL>
That was in your proposed text.  I tried to incorporate this more fully in the latest revision.  See the comment that I included in the text.  The range of discussions and examples point to the need for three distinct write-ups: (1) a concise model for trust, (2) a separate discussion of how trust affects interaction, especially composite interactions, and (3) more detailed discussions about the processes and mechanisms involved.  (1) is what I am working here, (2) should probably be an addition (if necessary, after PR2) to the interaction write-up, and (3) are separate documents outside the scope of the RA but hopefully elaborations that can build on the RA foundation.
</KL>
 5. Consequences of Assessing Trust and Risk repeats earlier stuff.
<KL>
Moved to section 3.x.x.1 and condensed.
</KL>
 6. Trust and SOA: cut down and move to the beginning.
<KL>
I didn’t move this because I think it requires the discussion of trust and risk before it makes sense.  However, I’m open to specific suggestions.
</KL>
</Frank_email>
Hopefully, this will enable us to move forward.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508


The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.

<trust revised 20090824.docx>
<trust revised 20090824 BL-KL.docx>

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







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