ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Prelim minutes of 5/25 ws-rx conf call
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: "wsrx" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 07:14:36 -0400
And this is a problem, why? The fact
is, that you do NOT need to register every
RM extension, only those that MUST be
understood for correct processing to
be ensured.
Are you envisaging a kagillion extensions?
I certainly don't forsee such a circumstance.
I also don't see registering the extension
QNames with the SOAP processor to be a problem.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
wrote on 05/25/2006 06:23:04 PM:
> This means that you need to register every WS-RM must-understand
> extension with the general SOAP processor. You're coupling your SOAP
> configuration (via the Qname of the header that refers to the
> extension) to the internal details of the messages (e.g. a
> particular extension to CloseSequence) that will be carried within
> SOAP. Extensions to WS-RM-defined messages should be handled at the
> WS-RM layer and not surfaced to the general SOAP processor.
>
> - gp
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:04 PM
> To: tom@coastin.com
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Prelim minutes of 5/25 ws-rx conf call
>
> From below:
> Doug B: (from chat) concretely: use a soap:mustUnderstand header
> which is handled using normal SOAP processing model, the given
> element's qname would be associated with semantics defined in the
> relevant WS-RM extension, the SOAP processor doesn't have to know
> the details of this extension just that a handler knows what to do
>
> +1
>
> I have tried to make this point repeatedly in the past. The whole
> point of the SOAP header
> with mU=true is just to test that the extension is understood.
> Nothing more, nothing less. It need not
> reference an explicit instance of the extension. It is merely there
> to say: if the processor doesn't
> know what to do with this extension, DO NOT process this message.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
> Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote on 05/25/2006 05:40:54 PM:
>
> > Prelim minutes 5/25 attached.
> >
> > Please post any corrections to entire list before monday morning.
> >
> > Tom Rutt
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1
732 774 5133
> >
> >
> > Prelim Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference
> > May 25, 2006
> >
> > Start Time:4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >
> > Sanjay acted as chair.
> >
> > Textual Conventions
> >
> > Ø Action Item
> > Motion
> > § Resolution
> >
> > 1 Roll Call
> > From Kavi:
> >
> > Over 32 of 46 voting members, meeting is quorate
> >
> > Tom Rutt agreed to take minutes.
> > 2 Agenda Approval
> > Agenda
> > 1) Roll Call
> >
> > 2) Review and approval of the agenda
> >
> > 3) Approval of the May 18, 2006 meeting minutes
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.
> > php/18295/MinutesWSRX-051806.html
> >
> > 4) AI Review
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php
> >
> > 5) New issues since last conf-call
> > Watch for Marc’s email
> >
> > 6) Review of changes due to i093
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00117.html
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00205.html
> >
> > 7) Issue Discussion:
> > a> i121 security threats and requirements
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i121
> > b> i122 security profiles
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i122
> > c> i124 security composition policy
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i124
> > d> i123 security profile agreement
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i123
> > e> i115 "must understand" attribute for extensions
to RM components
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i115
> > 8) Any other business
> >
> > Marc G asked about issue 119. Also 125 seems ready.
> >
> > Sanjay: Doug D is not on the call, but since 125 was not included
I
> > would put it at end.
> >
> > Marc: could 115 be put before the security issues?
> >
> > No objections to place 115 before security issues.
> >
> > 3 Approval of the 5/18 minutes;
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> > php/18243/MinutesWSRX-051106.html
> >
> > Tom moved, Marc G seconded to approve 5/18 minutes.
> >
> > § No objection minutes for 5/18 meeting approved.
> >
> > 4 AI Review
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php
> >
> > #0100: Tom Rutt & Bob volunteered to work on state table
revisions
> > with Jacques
> > Owner: Jacques Durand
> > Status: Still Open
> > Assigned: 2006-05-09
> > Due: ---
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > #0102: Marc G will prepare to start an issues list for Public
> reviewcomments
> > Owner: Marc Goodner
> > Status: Still Open
> > Assigned: 2006-05-22
> > Due: ---
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > #0103: Paul F will address Marc G concerns and interop concerns
in a
> > next version of schedule, including the member ballot
> > Owner: Paul Fremantle
> > Status: Still Open
> > Assigned: 2006-05-22
> > Due: ---
> > 5 New issues since last conf-call
> > none
> >
> > 6 Review of changes due to i093
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00117.html
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00205.html
> >
> > Sanjay: there was considerable discussion on the list about this.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00263.html
> >
> > Doug B: There seems to be agreement on a small number of changes
to
> > satisfy Marc G. I propose we accept Gils document with
the small
> > number of changes Marc G and I agreed on, and include this as
our
> > base document.
> >
> > Anish: I have a preference for an alternative proposal that I
sent.
> > It might be better to not use the MUST/MAY OPTIONAL keywords.
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-
> > rx/email/archives/200605/msg00266.html
> > I have an alternate proposal:
> >
> > Replace the offending parts with assertions that do not contain
any 2119
> > key words --
> > The cardinality of this [element|attribute] is [zero or more|one
or
> > more|exactly one].
> >
> > -Anish
> >
> > Gil: I agree with Anish, we can use xml schema language for
> > cardinalities, avoiding the rfc 2119 keywords.
> >
> > Marc G: this is inconsistent with the rest of the document. It
would
> > suggest multiple changes elsewhere. I prefer the proposal
from
> > myself and Doug. The text that Doug and I propose continues
to
> > describe the elements themselves, without cardinality.
> >
> > Anish: you can just get rid of existing improper 2119 terms,
and
> > replace with simple cardinality statements in English.
> >
> > Doug B moved to accept proposal from Marc and himself, Marc Seconded.
> >
> > Anish: speaks against it, since it states conformance constraints
twice.
> >
> > Doug B: in a particular change around wsrm:acksTo, the rfc 2119
> > language is about actions rm source must do and constraints on
the
> > type. It is also about how the rm destination must respond.
They
> > are not about cardinality.
> >
> > Vote:
> > 13 Yes
> > 6 No
> >
> > § Motion passed to accept proposal from Marc and
Doub F to
> close Issue 093.
> >
> > Discussion on availability of Next working draft.
> >
> > Gil: if we do not include issues we resolve today, we can be
ready soon.
> >
> > Sanjay: It should be ok to not include issues resolve on today’s
call.
> >
> > Marc G: the next wd will include all pending issues.
> >
> > Bob F: also must include issue 93.
> >
> > Gil: we should have one available by cob Tuesday.
> >
> > Anish: do we have exact text for Issue 96.
> >
> > Bob: issue 113 is based on an interim spec from Gil.
> >
> > Tom: those state tables came from an email from the Face to Face,
from Matt.
> >
> > Bob F: Jacques and I are eagerly awaiting a new draft which resolves
> > closed issues, to insert clause numbers in the state table.
> > 7 Issue Discussion:
> >
> > 7.1 I 115
> >
> > Gil: an updated proposal from may 3 is at: http://lists.oasis-open.
> > org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00025.html
> >
> > Gil: if other side does not understand the extension, the sender
> > must know that. We need some inditcation. This proposal
defines a
> > wsrm specific attribute, to be used at the top level (only) of
an
> > extension element, and we define a wsrm:mustunderstand Fault
to use
> > if the receiver does not understand that extension. I added
a
> > statement that the attribute cannot be used below the top element.
> >
> > Paul C: I am opposed to this. Soap already has a must understand
> > model, and having wsrm add this is not the way to go. I
would
> > rather add a soap header which states there is an extension element
> > being used, with a soap:mustUnderstand attribute.
> >
> > Anish: I disagree that this is not independent of the soap
> > processing model. This wsrm:mustUnderstand attribute is
checked
> > after the soap model does what it does.
> >
> > Gil: I have a problem with a new empty soap header, with a reference
> > to an extension used in another place. I think putting
wsrm
> > semantics into the soap processing layer is not valid. It
is
> > semantically wrong to use soap must understand, since there is
> > nothing wrong at the soap leve. The processing is better
done at
> > the WSRM level.
> >
> > Paul F: you could use a separate entity in a soap header. There
> > could be work around, but the general soap model allows the complex
> > case. Since I have not yet seen extensions proposed yet,
I think
> > this is something for version 2. I prefer we defer this
issue
> > resolution to a future version of the spec.
> >
> > Sanjay: I agree this should be deferred.
> >
> > Doug B: (from chat) concretely: use a soap:mustUnderstand header
> > which is handled using normal SOAP processing model, the given
> > element's qname would be associated with semantics defined in
the
> > relevant WS-RM extension, the SOAP processor doesn't have to
know
> > the details of this extension just that a handler knows what
to do
> >
> > Marc G: I agree with Doug B proposal on chat.
> >
> > Gil: with some of our security extensions, it would be better
to not
> > close sequence if the receiver does not understand a requirement
> > needed by the requester for that sequence. I do not want
to tightly
> > couple a general soap processing engine with the wsrm implementation.
> >
> > Sanjay: we should defer this issue since we do not yet have extensions.
> >
> > Umit: I would prefer this issue to be deferred to a later version
> ofthe spec.
> >
> > Paul F: Gil stated the security composition profile might need
such
> > a mechanism. Is this intended to be outside the spec.
> >
> > Gil: I want that to be within this spec.
> >
> > Paul F: then I think even more we should defer this. Why
build in
> > features when we do not have a use case in the spec that needs
them.
> >
> > Gil: It is unfair to require extensions to already exist before
we
> > have such a mechanism.
> >
> > Paul C: I would like to have it be clarified if Gil’s proposal
for
> > issue 123 requires this proposed solution.
> >
> > Sanjay: I would like to wait to answer this question until after
we
> > discuss issue 123.
> >
> > Sanjay: I propose we defer resolution of 115 until after we discuss
> > the security related issues.
> >
> >
> > 7.2 i121 security threats and requirements
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i121
> >
> > Gil: we need to realize that the sequence is a shared resource
which
> > is being protected. I need to make sure the sequence ack
comes
> > from the RMD which “owns” that sequence. This needs to
be explained.
> >
> > Gil: the existing text also has unnecessary details. I
just got
> > around to rewriting chaper 5. at: http://lists.oasis-open.
> > org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00096.html
> >
> > Gill review the threats which must be dealt with.
> >
> > Gil: sequence hijacking is not the same as a session identifier.
> >
> > Gil: the text on message correlation threats (in 5.4) might
be
> > better to remove altogether.
> >
> > Paul F: I think this is basically a good rewrite, although I
am not
> > a security expert. It uses terminology “integrity protected”,
and
> > it is not clear what this means. Could that be added to
a glossary?
> >
> > Gil: I agree that should be added to a glossary.
> >
> > Paul F: I think we could accept this proposal, with removal of
5.4.
> >
> > Paul C: The 8 requirements in the proposal in 5.5, do not correlate
> > back to the text on the 4 or 5 threats. If I only want
to worry
> > about sequence hijacking, I do not know which of the items in
5.5 apply.
> >
> > Gil: That is a good point, not everyone is worried about every
> > threat. The relationship between the threats an security
> > requirements needs to be clarified. I would like to take
an action
> > item to come up with a new version which does that.
> >
> > Ø Action: Gill will clarify his proposal for i121 to clarify
the
> > relationship between requirements and the threats.
> > Doug D: I am not ready to make a final decision until we see
the
> > result of this action item. I would like perhaps a straw
poll on
> > whether Gil should bother to carry out this action item to come
up
> > with a new proposal addressing the concerns raised on this call.
> >
> > Sanjay: straw poll Yes means continue to work, no means
to not have
> > Gill Bother to update the proposal.
> >
> > No opposition to having Gil work on action item.
> >
> > Paul C: he has threats, and requirements (solutions). I
would
> > prefer to have three sections, threats, potential countermeasures,
> > and which countermeasure is used for each threat. The WSI
has a
> > document which demonstrates this.
> >
> > Gil : I agree with Paul C.
> >
> > Sanjay: we should continue post questions to the mail list.
> >
> >
> > Gil: it might not be ready by next week call. The earlier
the
> > better for any email to the list. Two weeks is probable
too long a
> > time to wait. It would be better to be done before the
next meeting.
> > 7.3 b> i122 security profiles
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i122
> >
> > Gil reviewed his proposal posted as http://lists.oasis-open.
> > org/archives/ws-rx/200605/msg00097.html
> >
> > Gil: a profile does several things:
> > How rms and rmd authenticate each other when sequence is created.
> > For every message in sequence (traffic or control) how they know
who
> > sent the message or inserted the header.
> >
> > Gil: I see three sets of profiles
> > Tls and other authendication
> > Tls and tls authentication
> > Ws secure conversation.
> >
> > Gil: there is different concerns about RMS authentication and
AS
> > authentication. I would like other peoples opinion on this
proposal.
> >
> > Marc concern on web chat: I don't understand the TLS uris, aren't
> > you already connected over TLS by the time you are signaling
you
> areusing it?
> >
> > Marc: why does the RMS need to know whether the security applies
to
> > its code or the application’s code.
> >
> > Gil: if RMD is a separate node, it must ensure the identity of
AS
> > flows to the AD. It is necessary for composability.
> >
> > Paul C: This proposal for 122 is used in solution for 123.
> >
> > Gil: the ability of two ends to know how to protect WSRM is
> > important. This can be done out of band. 123 is about
the run time
> > agreement for those profiles. 122 is just about coming
up with a
> > way for two people to agree on that they are using for wsrm.
> >
> > Paul C: these profiles are collections of polices which and be
used
> > out of band. Why not use ws-security policy.
> >
> > Ran out of time.
> >
> > Sanjay: continue to discuss security concerns on the list.
> > 7.4 c> i124 security composition policy
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i124
> > no time to discuss
> > 7.5 d> i123 security profile agreement
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i123
> > no time to discuss
> >
> > 8 Any other business
> > none
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
may contain
> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its
subsidiaries and affiliated
> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
copyrighted and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
individual
> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
recipient,
> > and have received this message in error, please immediately return
this
> > by email and then delete it.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]