Attendees: Mark Cassidy, Jeff Broberg, Greg Pavlik, Rich Thompson, Alejandro Abdelnur, Petr Palas, Michael Freedman, Yossi Tamari, Thomas Schaeck, Carsten Leue, Dave Clegg
Agenda item #1. High level scenario discussion:
- Initial comment from JeffB: should we focus on the existing Embedded use case? Concerned about proliferation of scenarios; consensus was to stick with security-centric use cases until requirements are more clearly understood. It may make sense then to combine security into one of the other primary use cases.
- MarkC did brief walk-through of the high-level scenario document.
Comments:
- WSRP services may employ techniques for document encryption, secure transport, digital signing, etc. May need to include information in the service metadata on which are employed by the remote portlet. Also a possibility that an upcoming WSDL rev may provide this support(RichT)
- SOAP differences between MS, IBM need to be considered to avoid using techniques that will only work on one vendor’s platform(ThomasS)
- WSIA & WSRP share common security issues. Embedded use case document from WSIA lists numerous standards efforts currently active in the security arena.(RichT)
Several proposed focus points
emerged from discussions:
- establishment of trust relationship at initial service bind
- use of credentials established above for service requests
- removal of trust relationship when service is revoked
Questions to answer under this point include:
What types of credentials need to be supported/exchanged between portal and portlet?
How are credentials passed in a service request?
What are potential approaches for establishing and revoking trust?
- Anonymous: no end-user info is passed to the portlet
- Identified: some identity and possibly other attribute information about the end user is passed to the portlet.
- Authenticated: some credential about the end user is passed to the portlet
Alejandro commented that the mechanism for passing end user identity/attributes to the portlet should be part of the scope of this sub-group’s effort.
Questions to answer here include:
How is end-user identity info passed from portal to portlet?
What types of end-user credentials need to be supported?
What are the possible ways for passing end-user credentials?
- document-level encryption
- transport-level encryption
Questions here include:
Which current standards efforts deal with document-level encryption? Which should we focus on for WSRP as a concrete approach?
What about secure transport? There is SSL for http; since we shouldn’t be specifying a transport however, are there other secure transport standards? Is there a mechanism to secure the envelope without secure transport underlying?(MikeF comment)
How to secure against an impersonator from obtaining sensitive data or obtaining unauthorized service.
- digital signatures could fall under this topic
- this might overlap with one or several of the above.
Questions here include:
- What standards for digitally signing documents should be considered?
Agenda item #2:
Additional Scenarios
Since we didn’t have any input from a content provider’s perspective, we wanted to specifically solicit feedback from the following people:
- Bob Serr, Nigel Ratcliffe, and Mark Rosenberg: we’d like scenario input from your companies’ perspectives focusing on the points a-d above.
Comment from Dave Clegg: another possible scenario: nesting/embedded; if there are other intermediaries in the path between portal a portlet, may not want to expose end-user information to the intermediaries; do we need a mechanism to keep end-user data secure through middle tier services?
Agenda item #3: Actions, Next steps
1. RichT will update Embedded document with status of related standards efforts and summarize in next meeting.
2. MarkC to integrate the various issues/views into an organized set of discussion topics to focus on(initial cut at this captured in a-d above, culled from meeting notes).
3. Scenario inputs from Bob/Nigel/Mark
4. Thomas to provide additional scenario input related to (a) above
5. Yossi to provide scenario input to (b) above
Editor’s note: Prior to the next meeting, I’d like to have feedback/mail discussion on whether a-d above is a reasonable way to look at the issues in the scope of this working group. If we can agree to use this or something close as our starting point, I’ll update the scenario doc that I started prior to the meeting to reflect these focal points. The agenda for the next meeting then would be to review additional scenario inputs from those named above, and begin working through the questions related to each focal point.
-