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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

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


Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"


Since sending this message, I've had an epiphany thanks to Anders.  
There is a place for security, indirectly, within the service 
contract/agreement.  I doubt there will be further epiphanies on this.

-Matt

Ken Laskey wrote:

> RM == lowest common denominator that provides usable capability to 
> the  intended audience.  We could easily reduce the RM to something  
> approaching a null set by finding cases where something is not 
> needed.   If fact, I could argue that your render farm has no need 
> for  advertising/discovery.  For most of our audience, an SOA without  
> security is less than worthless and we should think carefully about  
> whether our response is merely "you can always add it on".
>
> Ken
>
> On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>
>> RM == lowest common denominator.  It is not an "architecture", or  
>> blueprint of a solution.  We cannot add something as complicated and  
>> diverse as security to the reference model without making some 
>> strong  recommendations about how to architect security in an SOA.
>>
>> Imagine these two SOAs: a render farm, and an intelligence 
>> information  system.  The render farm is isolated from open networks 
>> and all cycles  are devoted to processing video frames, whereas the 
>> intelligence  system is hyper connected.  This makes for extremely 
>> diverse security  requirements.  The render farm may use extensive 
>> physical security,  and rely on logging mechanisms to determine who 
>> did what later on.  In  this case, it could be argued that the render 
>> farm SOA has no  security.  The Intelligence system, on the other 
>> hand, would have a  multi-level security architecture governing 
>> everything from encryption  of non-transient storage media to xml 
>> encryption to intensive physical  security requirements.
>>
>> This is not our business, and all we will do in the RM is disqualify  
>> the RM from being used in various situations.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>> Let's leave this as an open issue, if we may.  Except for a very   
>>> simple, very closed system, I cannot imagine a viable SOA in a 
>>> real   environment without security.  I am willing to be educated 
>>> about   situations where security can legitimately be skipped, but I 
>>> don't   think it can be left out of a useful RM.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't believe that all SOAs do or will have security.  I think 
>>>> we   should simply not mention it.  This is, after all, an 
>>>> abstract   reference model.  We can produce the warmNfuzzy that 
>>>> having a  security  component adds in our own SOA designs that are  
>>>> identifiable with the  SOA-RM.
>>>>
>>>> -matt
>>>>
>>>> On 11-Apr-05, at 12:28 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not 100% sure about this.  I would like to research this on 
>>>>> a   more philosophical basis.  Not all SOA's use explicit 
>>>>> security   protocols (the internet doesn't).  The fundamental 
>>>>> philosophical   question may be " does the explicit statement 
>>>>> conveying the absence   of any security still imply a security 
>>>>> model"?
>>>>>
>>>>> The danger in saying "yes" is that it opens the door for more   
>>>>> "things" to be part of the RM.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to mull this over and do some research.  I am sure  
>>>>> Matt  has a good answer ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Duane
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Laskey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, the question is whether all SOAs SHOULD have security  
>>>>>> and  whether that needs to be captured in the RM.  As noted,  
>>>>>> secuirty is  often just tacked on and that may not be sufficient  
>>>>>> for *any* SOA to  be successful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 02:27 PM 4/11/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RM does not support security models.  A reference model is  
>>>>>>> used  to guide the design of architecture that may include  
>>>>>>> specific  security protocols or models. Our requirement must be  
>>>>>>> to ensure  that nothing we place in the RM makes any specific  
>>>>>>> security model a  requirement (since not all SOA's have 
>>>>>>> security)  and to ensure that  we do not preclude a specific 
>>>>>>> type of  security model from being  used.
>>>>>>> Duane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vikas Deolaliker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the question should be how many different types of   
>>>>>>>> security models
>>>>>>>> will this RM support?
>>>>>>>> Vikas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --   
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --  ***********
>>>>>>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -   
>>>>>>> http://www.adobe.com
>>>>>>> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary -  
>>>>>>> http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>>>>>>> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  -   
>>>>>>> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>>>>>>> ***********
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --        
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>> -- ------------
>>>>>>   /   Ken 
>>>>>> Laskey                                                    
>>>>>>               \
>>>>>>  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-883-7934   |
>>>>>>  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:       
>>>>>> 703-883-1379    |
>>>>>>   \   McLean VA 
>>>>>> 22102-7508                                                /
>>>>>>       
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>> -- -------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -   
>>>>> http://www.adobe.com
>>>>> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>>>>> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  -   
>>>>> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>>>>> ***********
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -- ------------------
>>> Ken Laskey
>>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
>>> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
>>> McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>



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