Hi, sorry for the confusion - the goal is here simply to find out if there are other ways in infrastructures except [SAML-based VOMS, classic AC VOMS, Shibboleth] to retrieve attributes and if we may can skip the need for Shib* ways of doing it. I think standardization of the Classic AC VOMS interface is out of scope while the standardization of the SAML-based VOMS interface is done by SAML. But we should state in the document both as examples of retrieving attributes to get the profile more clear. I got from the mail of you about EGEE (I refered to in my mail) that we have to support Classic AC VOMS, which in turn means to look closer on the "AC embedded proxy" approach in our profile (other upcoming e-mail thread). You may see it as a precondition before looking closer to the precise encoding of transport mechanism. Hope that 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@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.' ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Newhouse <Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:55 pm Subject: RE: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on supported Attribute Authority Interfaces

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@ogf.org [pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Morris Riedel Sent: 19 March 2009 14:22 To: pgi-wg@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@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)

------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------