[ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5

Duane Merrill dgm4d at virginia.edu
Fri Oct 12 13:48:30 CDT 2007


Things that I would suggest we communicate re: delegation in the primer:

    * Delegation is a useful feature to be addressed and supported by
      the architecture.  (I hesitate at making it a /requirement /for
      participating in the architecture: composition of features,
      no-pay-no-play, etc.).  Perhaps also include a motivating simple
      generic use-case of: "I want to run my job, the executor needs to
      obtain resources/input on my behalf, etc."
    * Delegation mechanisms have historically been closely tied to
      credential mechanisms (e.g., X-509 proxy certs and MyProxy,
      holder-of-key SAML assertions, etc.), which we have stated the
      OGSA is to be flexible with in terms of type, subject to profiling
      by the OGSA security model.  (Grand-unifying delegation
      specifications pending....)
    * Delegation statements that are included within or alongside
      credentials will face federation issues that trust policy will
      have to address in addition to simple token-mapping (i.e., what
      happens during credential mapping between security domains)


Although my original statement was somewhat flippant, I would still 
consider this treatment of delegation as "tossing it in with the current 
treatment of  credentials and security policy": in many cases the 
important decisions regarding requirements for type and semantics/policy 
will remain with the service provider and their trust agreements.

-Duane


Blair Dillaway wrote:
>
> ... correction. I meant  'x.509 proxy certificates' , not attribute 
> certificates, in the first paragraph below.
>
>  
>
> /Blair
>
>  
>
> *From:* Blair Dillaway
> *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> *To:* 'Duane Merrill III'; Marty Humphrey; ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>
>  
>
> Duane,
>
>  
>
> My reasons for asking about delegation are in line with Marty's 
> concern. Delegation is a long standing requirement in Grid systems 
> that has been discussed for many years and a number of different 
> approaches have been developed for addressing it. For example, all the 
> work around technologies such as attribute certificates and MyProxy 
> servers. I believe an OGSA primer should at least acknowledge these needs.
>
>  
>
> While I happen to think SecPAL provides a great way to express 
> delegations, its still a research project and I'm would not suggest 
> you reference it this primer.
>
>  
>
> Re: 'realizing trust relationships'
>
>  
>
> Your seem to be interpreting your sentence in a way I find very odd. I 
> expect many other people will not read this as you seem to intend and 
>  I suggest you re-word it.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Blair
>
>  
>
> *From:* ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Duane Merrill III
> *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 8:13 AM
> *To:* Marty Humphrey; ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>
>  
>
> Marty, perhaps you miss my point. 
>
>  
>
> I was not suggesting that the model "wave its hands vigorously" 
> regarding delegation requirements.  In fact, quite the opposite: I am 
> not aware of any spec or profile that gives consideration to 
> delegation requirements within a federated model.  For example, a 
> SecPAL delegation statement like "/Alice/ says /Cluster/ can read 
> //project/data/ if /currentTime/() </ 07/09/2008/" may have to undergo 
> mapping during federated access to adjust the principals due to 
> credential translation, or perhaps to translate the requirement to a 
> different delegation policy language understood by the resource 
> provider, etc. 
>
>  
>
> I was suggesting that the model address delegation with the same 
> attitude as it addresses credential and security policy mechanisms; 
> opportunities to assert relevance arise from filtering these features 
> through the OGSA philosophies of site-autonomy, 
> separation-of-policy-and-mechanism, etc.  It may not jibe with the 
> philosophies to require a specific brand of delegation in the same 
> vein that it doesn't fly to mandate a specific global credentialing 
> mechanism or a specific set of secure communication requirements. 
>
>  
>
> -Duane
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:* Marty Humphrey <mailto:humphrey at cs.virginia.edu>
>
>     *To:* ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>
>     *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 8:01 AM
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>
>      
>
>     "OGSA Security" has the challenge of asserting and showing
>     /relevance/ to the broader community; just assuming relevance is a
>     mistake in my opinion.
>
>      
>
>     One way to assert relevance is to clearly identify requirements
>     that are arguably unique to "OGSA Security".
>
>      
>
>     To state that delegation is to be merely implicitly "tossed in
>      with security policy and credential management" is a mistake and
>     fails to exploit an obvious opportunity to directly assert relevance.
>
>      
>
>     -- Marty
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:* ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org]
>     *On Behalf Of *Duane Merrill III
>     *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 3:49 AM
>     *To:* Blair Dillaway; ogsa-wg at ogf.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>
>      
>
>     With regard to some of Blair's comments:
>
>      
>
>         *[Primer]*
>
>         >>> "OGSA security model addresses trust management via the
>         profiling of
>
>         >>> mechanisms defined in the WS-Trust specification in order
>         to realize trust
>
>         >>> relationships as rules and policies for mapping identities
>         and credentials
>
>         >>> among the involved organization domains."
>
>         *[Blair's comments]*
>
>         > WS-Trust focuses on a protocol for obtaining, exchanging,
>         validating, ...
>
>         > security tokens. Section 2 briefly discusses trust policies
>         and mentions
>
>         > some mechanism for establishing the base trust policy. These
>         are,
>
>         > however, non-normative and not required by WS-Trust.  It also
>         doesn't
>
>         > address issuance policy at a token service. So its not really
>         a sufficient
>         > basis for establishing "trust  relationships as rules and
>         policies".
>
>     WS-Trust doesn't /establish/ relationships, it helps /realize
>     /established relationships.  This sentence is basically saying that:
>
>         * WS-Trust establishes the notion of token services
>         * Token services are useful for mapping identities and
>           credentials among security domains
>         * The mapping of identities and credentials is the
>           realization/incarnation of trust relationships
>         * Vague hinting that the model will incorporate the profiling
>           of WS-Trust to establish more normative behavior
>
>      
>
>         *[Blair's comments con't.]*
>
>         > I find it surprising the subject of delegation of access
>         rights isn't even mentioned.
>
>      
>
>     Aren't we just assuming everyone will use SecPAL assertions? 
>
>      
>
>     Honestly, one might argue that delegation of access rights should
>     be treated in the same vein as security token types; claims of
>     delegation criteria will probably have to be federated in a
>     similar vein as tokens themselves.  Thus delegation is tossed in
>     with security policy & credential mechanism: all to be the
>     responisibility of the service providers and profiled in the
>     common-cases by the OGSA security architecture.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     -Duane
>
>      
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     From: "Blair Dillaway" <blaird at microsoft.com
>     <mailto:blaird at microsoft.com>>
>
>     To: <ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>>
>
>     Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:29 PM
>
>     Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>
>      
>
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > I have reviewed the latest draft and posted my comments into the
>     tracker.  I assigned the item to Andreas assuming he'd know who'd
>     be interested in comments on the different sections.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Blair
>     >
>     >> -----Original Message-----
>     >> From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org>
>     [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>     >> Behalf Of Andreas Savva
>     >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:39 PM
>     >> To: Hiro Kishimoto; Alan Sill
>     >> Cc: ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>     >> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>     >>
>     >> After the last Primer review I created an issue tracker. Please post
>     >> issues relating to this document to
>     >>
>     https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/tracker/do/listArtifacts/projects.ogsa-
>     >> wg/tracker.ogsa_primer
>     >>
>     >> Also the latest version of the document may be retrieved from
>     >> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14408?nav=1
>     >>
>     >> Thanks Duane for uploading.
>     >>
>     >> Andreas
>     >>
>     >> Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
>     >> > Thanks Alan,
>     >> >
>     >> > Please provide your feedback to Duane and Andrew.
>     >> > We will review revised document on Oct. 19 (Fri) at
>     >> > OGSA-WG F2F meeting in OGF21 Hotel. Please join us in
>     >> > person or dial-in.
>     >> >
>     >> > http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=ogsa.wg%40gmail.com
>     >> >
>     >> > Thanks,
>     >> > ----
>     >> > Hiro Kishimoto
>     >> >
>     >> > -------- Original Message  --------
>     >> > Subject: Re:[ogsa-wg] OGSA Primer Newest Latest draft - v5
>     >> > From: Alan Sill <Alan.Sill at ttu.edu <mailto:Alan.Sill at ttu.edu>>
>     >> > To: Duane Merrill <dgm4d at virginia.edu <mailto:dgm4d at virginia.edu>>
>     >> > Cc: ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>     >> > Date: 2007/10/03 23:05
>     >> >
>     >> >> I am traveling today and tomorrow and will miss this
>     discussion.  I
>     >> >> do intend to contribute something in this area soon.
>     >> >>
>     >> >> I think the direction that has been started with the Express
>     >> Profile,
>     >> >> including work to allow SSL/TLS and possibly Kerberos
>     >> communications,
>     >> >> as examples, and to allow services to "express" the AuthN methods
>     >> >> that they respect, and can use, is potentially very
>     important, and
>     >> >> with some work, might find real-world use case possibilities
>     in the
>     >> >> not too distant future.  (I realize that this was not the
>     sense of
>     >> >> "express" meant here, but could not resist the pun.)  There
>     are some
>     >> >> projects of which I am aware that could use exactly this
>     feature in
>     >> >> the near future.  SO just wanted to encourage work to continue in
>     >> >> this area.
>     >> >>
>     >> >> Alan
>     >> >>
>     >> >> On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Duane Merrill wrote:
>     >> >>
>     >> >>> Everyone, I have updated the primer document to include a
>     draft of
>     >> >>> Section 3.5: Security.  I realize that it is always tenuous to
>     >> >>> submit a large section to a document hours before it is up for
>     >> >>> review, and I apologize.  If anyone has the time to inspect
>     the new
>     >> >>> section, feedback and suggestions this evening would be
>     fantastic.
>     >> >>> I've uploaded it to Gridforge as v.5 and attached it to this
>     mail
>     >> >>> as well.
>     >> >>>
>     >> >>> Duane
>     >> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>     >> >>>> From: Andrew Grimshaw
>     >> >>>> To: ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>     >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:34 PM
>     >> >>>> Subject: [ogsa-wg] Latest draft - v4
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>> All,
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>> Attached is the latest draft of the primer. Most of the
>     pieces are
>     >> >>>> now in place. We still need sections 3.4-3.7, and of course
>     >> >>>> reviews by people.  The section on the data center use case is
>     >> >>>> waiting for whoever wanted it in there to write it.
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>> The adoption section I'd like to talk about in a conference
>     call
>     >> >>>> to make sure it is a) correct, and b) saying what we want it to
>     >> say.
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>> Summary will wait till the end.
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>>> A
>     >> >>>>
>     >> >>> <OGSA Primer -v5.doc>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> Andreas Savva
>     >> Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >>   ogsa-wg mailing list
>     >>   ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>     >>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
>     > --
>     >  ogsa-wg mailing list
>     >  ogsa-wg at ogf.org <mailto:ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
>     >  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
>     >
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     --
>       ogsa-wg mailing list
>       ogsa-wg at ogf.org
>       http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20071012/bcac3636/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the ogsa-wg mailing list