[RUS-WG] New Charter with review comments integrated

[Gilbert Netzer]

Hi Morris,

just a few questions:

When you deleted paragraph 2, does that mean that other WGs are out
there that define how auditing is to be done?
In that case it would be good to reference to them, because we would be
dependent on them. Otherwise, we probably should still state that we
need to define how to do our own auditing.

Furthermore I guess we should reference to these WGs if they define for
us on what granularity access should be granted (collection, record,
attribute). If they don't we still have to define that in our own
specification, as done in the current draft.

One Problem remains though, if we define how to do auditing, or what
audit information has to be returned, we also sort of define how
security has to be done (i.e. the current draft says that we return a
ds:KeyInfo and that means that we need to get this info from somewhere).

Just to reiterate: The reason why we currently are concerned with
auditing is that changes to URs should be traceable so that clients can
establish trust in the contents of the UR (i.e. the UR i got was
actually created by the resource that executed my job and was not
modified by anyone). This is also important in the case of conflict
between resource owner and consumer.

Best Regards
Gilbert Netzer

P.S.: GridForge allows you to upload new versions for the same document.
Was there any specific reason to create a new document (thereby
discarding all version history from it)? I have added the new version of
the charter to the other charter draft (labelled 24th). I guess if it
just was the date we all do better by not cluttering the document folder
and having the version history in the document!


Morris Riedel wrote:
> Hi RUS – team,
> 
>  
> 
> please find on gridforge a slightly modified charter that addressed 
> review comments:
> 
>  
> 
> (1)
> 
> The appearance of OMII – Europe was significantly reduced since OGF is a 
> community effort, not a project effort
> (remains just in context interoperability with funded efforts)
> 
>  
> 
> (2)
> 
> The security paragraph of section 2.2 was more or less what also the 
> other groups in area security within OGF want to achieve. So I get rid 
> of it.
> 
>  
> 
> (3)
> 
> I try to foster more what should be inside the second specification, 
> however I’m quite unsure if we should add a profile for connection 
> technologies such as WS-RF or if we just state a rendering section like 
> within OGSA-BES with respect to WS-RF…
> 
>  
> 
> If no other reviews or comments reach me by 20:00 this evening, I will 
> send our new charter to our area director.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for helps,
> 
> Morris
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Morris Riedel
> 
> SW - Engineer
> 
> Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division
> Central Institute of Applied Mathematics
> Research Centre Juelich
> 
> Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1
> D - 52425 Juelich
> 
> Germany
> 
>  
> 
> Email:  m.riedel at fz-juelich.de <mailto:m.riedel at fz-juelich.de>
> Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/riedel
> 
>  
> 
> Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651
> Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656
> 
>  
> 
> Skype: MorrisRiedel
> 
>  
> 
> 'We work to improve ourselves and the rest of mankind.'
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
>   rus-wg mailing list
>   rus-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/rus-wg