Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces
ok let dive into them..., ----- Original Message ----- From: weizhong qiang <weizhongqiang@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces
hi, I have some questions as following.
2009/3/19 Morris Riedel <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de>
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
Do you proposed to use the stadardized RFC AC, instead of the VOMS AC which is known as a simplified RFC while de-facto AC. If so, I think it is not needed. We can use VOMS AC, because we already have a few production Grid systems which have supported it.
Well I was aware that VOMS AC are compliant with RFC AC's - I didn't know that they reduced the complexity of the specification. Can you point me to a standard specification of AC VOMS then - or this really purely de-facto?!
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.
Shibboleth itself does not support SLCs, and you need to develope some system to issuing SLCs by using Shibboleth as ONE part of this system. You can also get SLCs credential through otherway except Shibboleth- based. IF we use "push" model, I think how does the client get the credential doesn'tmatter, what does matter is the content of the credential.
Yes, of course, I was referring with Shib to the full palette of it [GridShib, ShibGrid, ***whateverSHIB] I didn't go so much into detail because I hoped Shib* was out of scope here, which in turn means that we do not have to deal with credential formats in that context - my experience is clearly related to GridShib (X.509 + Shib IDP) and rather Globus-driven, which is putting SAML assertions in SLC extensions to be checked by CAS. Q: However, is there precise demand to support Shib from ARC or could this be the non-PGI elements of ARC? Are there users in your production Grid using Shib as AA? Q: What is the plan of EGEE in this context? Are there already users in production using Shib as AA? Info: UNICORE has been enabled with Shibboleth in DEISA, but part of the implementation relies on GridShib to the best of my knowledge following the mentioned approach above. So far - we see no precise demand that Shib-* part should be part of the PGI profile - especially Shib access is not in production in DEISA now, only planned for the next years (-> our of scope of PGI from our viewpoint).
Futhermore, I can see two different problems here about interoperability in PGI in terms of credential/attributes: a.The interoperability of getting a credential (with attributes inside); The points you mentioned above are all about this problem. b.the interoperability of using a credential (with attribute inside). One user or client (on behalf of user) get the credential, it needs to use it and interoperate with services.
I guess PGI is supposed to solve both of them?
I think a might be out of scope since it have to then include proprietary protocols such as classic VOMS?! Part of this discussion is to find this out - maybe there is a way for it?! (e.g. what do you do once your AC-based proxy lifetime ended?! Renewal problem, which interface you use of renewal then?) b. Absolutely!
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!
So we are only going to solve the second sub-problem I concluded above?
Maybe - its actually only my suggestion by now - I'm happy to discuss ways of how we could standardize point (a) mentioned by you.
C. We deal with RFC ACs
Not VOMS AC?
Please provide a reference for this standard.
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?
Changing VOMS AC to RFC AC? Plus Supporting SAML Assertion?
That is the input for the next e-mail thread then - which types of attribute transport formats we have to support - I guess that's hopefully all of them, while hopefully avoid using SAML assertions within X.509 extensions?!
Q: Is there any production infrastructure that largely supports
Shibboleth> w/o supporting VOMS either in classic or WS style?
In terms of ARC, The production ARC supports VOMS classic The development ARC supports VOMS classic and WS style, and has it own SLCs service which is based on Shibboleth IdP.
ok - useful information - the question would be then when you plan to move from development to production with the WS-style? Nevertheless, we have to support VOMS Classic since Steven stated clearly that EGEE will not directly move soon to the WS-style - and even if they do - there would be probably a lot of services that will be only Classic VOMS compliant.
Cheers Weizhong
Thanks for your sharing your thoughts!
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@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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH 52425 Jülich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:57 PM, <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de> wrote:
ok let dive into them...,
----- Original Message ----- From: weizhong qiang <weizhongqiang@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces
hi, I have some questions as following.
2009/3/19 Morris Riedel <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de>
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
Do you proposed to use the stadardized RFC AC, instead of the VOMS AC which is known as a simplified RFC while de-facto AC. If so, I think it is not needed. We can use VOMS AC, because we already have a few production Grid systems which have supported it.
Well I was aware that VOMS AC are compliant with RFC AC's - I didn't know that they reduced the complexity of the specification. Can you point me to a standard specification of AC VOMS then - or this really purely de-facto?!
I meant this documentation: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13797 At least from this documentation, there is a statement " Customizations used by VOMS will be discussed in individual subsections." But I am not the one who has quality to assure this.
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.
Shibboleth itself does not support SLCs, and you need to develope some system to issuing SLCs by using Shibboleth as ONE part of this system. You can also get SLCs credential through otherway except Shibboleth- based. IF we use "push" model, I think how does the client get the credential doesn'tmatter, what does matter is the content of the credential.
Yes, of course, I was referring with Shib to the full palette of it [GridShib, ShibGrid, ***whateverSHIB]
I didn't go so much into detail because I hoped Shib* was out of scope here, which in turn means that we do not have to deal with credential formats in that context - my experience is clearly related to GridShib (X.509 + Shib IDP) and rather Globus-driven, which is putting SAML assertions in SLC extensions to be checked by CAS.
Q: However, is there precise demand to support Shib from ARC or could this be the non-PGI elements of ARC?
There is no "precise demand", and it is just one module of the development version. And it is not mandatory for PGI, also not mandatory for other ARC services.
Are there users in your production Grid using Shib as AA?
Q: What is the plan of EGEE in this context? Are there already users in production using Shib as AA?
Info: UNICORE has been enabled with Shibboleth in DEISA, but part of the implementation relies on GridShib to the best of my knowledge following the mentioned approach above. So far - we see no precise demand that Shib-* part should be part of the PGI profile - especially Shib access is not in production in DEISA now, only planned for the next years (-> our of scope of PGI from our viewpoint).
Futhermore, I can see two different problems here about interoperability in PGI in terms of credential/attributes: a.The interoperability of getting a credential (with attributes inside); The points you mentioned above are all about this problem. b.the interoperability of using a credential (with attribute inside). One user or client (on behalf of user) get the credential, it needs to use it and interoperate with services.
I guess PGI is supposed to solve both of them?
I think a might be out of scope since it have to then include proprietary protocols such as classic VOMS?! Part of this discussion is to find this out - maybe there is a way for it?! (e.g. what do you do once your AC-based proxy lifetime ended?! Renewal problem, which interface you use of renewal then?)
b. Absolutely!
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!
So we are only going to solve the second sub-problem I concluded above?
Maybe - its actually only my suggestion by now - I'm happy to discuss ways of how we could standardize point (a) mentioned by you.
C. We deal with RFC ACs
Not VOMS AC?
Please provide a reference for this standard.
See above.
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?
Changing VOMS AC to RFC AC? Plus Supporting SAML Assertion?
That is the input for the next e-mail thread then - which types of attribute transport formats we have to support - I guess that's hopefully all of them, while hopefully avoid using SAML assertions within X.509 extensions?!
If avoiding using SAML assertion within X.509 extension, a way for carrying it should be defined ( maybe it is not in this thread? :) )
Q: Is there any production infrastructure that largely supports
Shibboleth> w/o supporting VOMS either in classic or WS style?
In terms of ARC, The production ARC supports VOMS classic The development ARC supports VOMS classic and WS style, and has it own SLCs service which is based on Shibboleth IdP.
ok - useful information - the question would be then when you plan to move from development to production with the WS-style?
Since it is optional, no plan to put it into production currently, I think. And Again, the second problem (how to push/carry the SAML assertion) which we need to focus on is orthogonal to the Shibboleth scenario, I think Weizhong
Nevertheless, we have to support VOMS Classic since Steven stated clearly that EGEE will not directly move soon to the WS-style - and even if they do - there would be probably a lot of services that will be only Classic VOMS compliant.
Cheers Weizhong
Thanks for your sharing your thoughts!
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@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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH 52425 Jülich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
m.riedel＠fz-juelich.de -
weizhong qiang