[Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces

Sat Mar 21 05:10:23 CDT 2009

I don't think we're going to get anything else out of the Authz group. If this document has value to the PGI group I would suggest (after pinging the Authz group) that we take ownership of it and move it forwards (as is?) within PGI.

Steven

Dr Steven Newhouse

EGEE Technical Director

http://cern.ch/Steven.Newhouse

From: Duane Merrill [mailto:dgm4d at virginia.edu] 
Sent: 20 March 2009 13:37
To: Steven Newhouse
Cc: Morris Riedel; pgi-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces

My opinion is that we should strongly encourage the OGSA-Authz group to finalize 

The VOMS Attribute Certificate Format.  OGSA-Authz Working Group, Open Grid Forum, September 11, 2006.   http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13797?nav=1 

(Which has nothing to do with protocols or interfaces for credential retrieval.)

-Duane

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Steven Newhouse <Steven.Newhouse at cern.ch> wrote:

Hi Morris,

I'm confused by the context here... are you suggesting we look to standardise the VOMS interface (or the service that serves up the proxy that) or the proxy and its content itself?

Thanks,

Steven

Dr Steven Newhouse
EGEE Technical Director
http://cern.ch/Steven.Newhouse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
> Of Morris Riedel
> Sent: 19 March 2009 14:22
> To: pgi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority
> Interfaces
>
> Hi PGI security folks,
>
>   another issue I see is the supported attribute authorities and (more
> notably) their interfaces.
>
> Taking our experience from GIN into account and addressing the message
> of Steven (EGEE) there are still two interfaces to consider in terms of
> VOMS.
> Also, as an alternative AA there is Shibboleth quite much used in the
> space.
>
> ### goal
>
> (a)
> We are discussing which AA can be used in PGI to retrieve attributes...
>
> (b)
> ...because we want to find out which interfaces have to be supported to
> get attributes...
>
>
> (c)
> ... in order to know more precisely which types of attribute transport
> mechanisms we have to support in PGI.
>
> ### Possible scenarios
>
> A. A user contacts a non-WS-based classic VOMS with a proprietary
> interface, but gets a standardized RFC AC back with the attributes
> signed by the VOMS.
> (later on these are used within extensions of RFC proxies for attr-
> authZ)
>
> B. A user contacts a WS-based VOMS with SAML-REQUEST-interface standard
> and gets a standardized SAML Assertion back signed by the VOMS service.
> (later on these are used within WS-SecExt within SOAP Headers)
>
> C. A user contacts a Shibboleth system (possibly w/o WAYF) using SLCs
> with SAML assertions inside its extensions.
>
> D. A user contacts MyProxy with a stored proxy using ACs in its
> extension (implies no new attribute transport mechanism), but possibly
> a new interface of getting (indirectly) attributes.
>
>
> I see the agreement on the elements of this e-mail thread as a
> prerequisite to agree on the mechanisms of which attribute formats we
> support and how we convey attributes precisely (separate email thread).
>

> ### Possible conclusion:
>
> A. We only reference in our profile possible ways of retrieving either
> ACs or SAML assertions (e.g. by pointing to the SAML-request document
> that is in public comment currently as mentioned earlier). We do not
> intend to profile how exactly a user gets its attributes.
>
> B. If we agree on A - we indirectly agree on attribute push since in
> the attribute pull mode - for interoperability reasons - the interface
> of getting attributes must be known so that the middleware can contact
> it on behalf of the user!
>
> C. We deal with RFC ACs
>
> D. We deal with SAML assertions
>
> E. We only consider C+D in the first iteration of the profile
>
>
>

> ### open Questions
>
> Q: Can we agree on these conclusions? Are there any comments -
> something I missed?
>
> Q: Is there any production infrastructure that largely supports
> Shibboleth w/o supporting VOMS either in classic or WS style?
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the attribute - and its transport mechanisms out of
> scope in this e-mail thread.
>
>
> Take care,
> Morris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Morris Riedel
> SW - Engineer
> Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division Jülich Supercomputing
> Centre (JSC) Forschungszentrum Juelich Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1 D - 52425
> Juelich Germany
>
> Email: m.riedel at fz-juelich.de
> Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel
> Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651
> Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656
>
> Skype: MorrisRiedel
>
> "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity"
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft
> (stellv. Vorsitzender)
>

_______________________________________________
Pgi-wg mailing list
Pgi-wg at ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20090321/dc88ece9/attachment-0001.html 