Nabble - GENI.net

Notes from the Experimenter Services and Tools WG.

2009-11-25T14:12:23Z

The Experimenter Workflow Tools and Services Working Group met on 17
November 2009 at the GEC held in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Vic Thomas, the GPO systems engineer supporting this WG, introduced the new
working group chairs (Prof. Jeannie Albrecht of Williams College and Prof.
James Griffioen of the U. of Kentucky) and thanked them for agreeing to
chair the WG. Vic went over the charter of the working group, documents
produced to date by the WG, and WG plans for Spiral 2.

In Spiral 2 of GENI the WG will focus on identifying tools and services
needs of the experiments planned for this spiral. The WG meeting agenda was
designed to understand the needs of the experimenters and assess how well
these needs are being met or will be met by tool and control framework
developers.

The first presentation at the meeting was by JongWon Kim who described a
service composition experiment on the Korean FIRST testbed.

This was followed by four talks by researchers planning on doing experiments
on GENI or building services that live within a GENI slice and hence look a
lot like experiments. The WG chairs, Jeannie and Jim, had asked the
speakers to provide a concise summary of their experiments and then talk
about their "experimentation requirements". In particular, they were asked
to address four possible dimensions of the "experiment space":
- Duration: Is the intended experiment short-lived (e.g., requiring more
interactive features) or long-lived (e.g., requiring (error) event
notification rather than interactive support)?
- Layering: What layer of abstraction does the experiment want to
control? (e.g., does it need to control the topology and link
characteristics? or does it need to completely replace IP with a new packet
format and router processing? does it need to control/install in-network
transport services e.g., retransmission or encryption, or ... service? or
does it need to control placement of application-level (e.g., P2P) services?
etc)?
- Domain: What type(s) of resources does the experiment need? (e.g.,
wireless, wired, mobile, sensor, storage, ..., or some combination)
- Scale: How many resources comprise the experiment? (e.g., very large
experiments will need tools that help manage large sets of resources
collectively rather than individually; whereas small experiments may want
tools that interact with each resource individually).

Felix Wu described his experiment "Davis Social Links" that plans on hosting
Facebook applications on GENI. Needs he identified included support for
24x7 operations, ability to quickly grow or shrink a slice to adapt to
quickly changing resource requirements of the applications, the ability to
load custom OS images onto nodes and the ability to replace the IP-based
Layer 3 protocols with his own Layer 3 protocol and routing mechanisms.

Emmanuel Cecchet described the data intensive applications being developed
by his group. These applications involve high bandwidth sensors such as
weather radars. He pointed out the need for large amounts of storage with
high-bandwidth access from the testbed. Cloud storage may not be suitable
for his applications because of limitations of bandwidth to/from the
storage.

Sonia Fahmy described the shared measurement system she is developing for
GENI. This is an active measurement system and she needs the ability to
install custom probes in or near routers. These probes are intended to
inject and measure traffic close to the routers and core of the network.

Finally, Beth Plale described her service to collect and record provenance
information for GENI experiments: Their lineage or historical trace that can
capture experiment conditions, time ordering, and relationships within the
experiment and across the application and infrastructure layer. The
expectation is much of this information will be inferred and will not be
explicitly provided by the experimenter. Some of this information is
available to the control framework and it would be helpful to be able to get
at this information.

These four talks were followed by panel discussion moderated by Jeannie
Albrecht. The panelists included representatives of each of the four
control frameworks: Ivan Seskar (ORBIT), Rob Ricci (ProtoGENI), Larry
Peterson (PlanetLab) and Jeff Chase (ORCA). The panelists were asked to
address specific needs identified by experimenters. Some needs, such as
supporting 24x7 operations, was deemed by the panel to be outside the scope
of the control framework; experiments but be prepared to deal with failures
of resources used by their experiments. Other needs such as loading of
custom OS images are already supported by some control frameworks. The WG
chairs felt this was the start of a useful dialog and there needs to be more
discussion on specific things the control framework developers can do to
make it easier for experimenters or those developing tools for
experimenters.

The meeting agenda and slides presented at the meeting are at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GEC6ServicesWGAgenda.

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

GSAT draft outline and project POCs posted on GENI wiki

2009-11-15T18:39:10Z

Everyone,
The GENI Security Architecture Project (GSAT), represented by myself, is
trying to ensure that we have POCs for each GENI project that has, or
may have, some influence on the spiral 2 GENI Security Architecture. Our
goal is to revise the Security Architecture document to release January
31, 2010 in a way that captures and tracks the current security issues
facing the prototypes that are integrating based on spiral 1, deploying
based on spiral 1 and 2, or has forward-looking security issues.
(Although, we would like to focus our scarce resources on near-term
issues first.)

I've listed names of folks I've exchanged email with next to their
projects, and expect to touch base -- perhaps on Monday afternoon or
during the demo sessions if possible -- with most of these folks. I'm
sure there are many others who aren't on my list who might have
something to talk about -- please just track me down -- I'll be at the
protoGENI (cluster C) meeting and then bouncing around to the other
cluster meetings, and then down at the demo sessions.

I will also be staying late on Wednesday, not catching a flight until
5PM, so if anyone is around after the meeting breaks up, we could also
schedule a time to talk then.

The document can be found at the bottom of my project page.
http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GENISecurity

Feel free to forward this email to anyone who isn't on control-wg or
omis-wg.
--Steve

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

GSAT draft outline and project POCs posted on GENI wiki

2009-11-15T18:39:10Z

Everyone,
The GENI Security Architecture Project (GSAT), represented by myself, is
trying to ensure that we have POCs for each GENI project that has, or
may have, some influence on the spiral 2 GENI Security Architecture. Our
goal is to revise the Security Architecture document to release January
31, 2010 in a way that captures and tracks the current security issues
facing the prototypes that are integrating based on spiral 1, deploying
based on spiral 1 and 2, or has forward-looking security issues.
(Although, we would like to focus our scarce resources on near-term
issues first.)

I've listed names of folks I've exchanged email with next to their
projects, and expect to touch base -- perhaps on Monday afternoon or
during the demo sessions if possible -- with most of these folks. I'm
sure there are many others who aren't on my list who might have
something to talk about -- please just track me down -- I'll be at the
protoGENI (cluster C) meeting and then bouncing around to the other
cluster meetings, and then down at the demo sessions.

I will also be staying late on Wednesday, not catching a flight until
5PM, so if anyone is around after the meeting breaks up, we could also
schedule a time to talk then.

The document can be found at the bottom of my project page.
http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GENISecurity

Feel free to forward this email to anyone who isn't on control-wg or
omis-wg.
--Steve

_______________________________________________
omis-wg mailing list
omis-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/omis-wg

From forum: GENI OMIS WG

Re: Initial investigation result of federation issues

2009-11-13T21:27:05Z

Hi Rob,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> wrote:
> On Slide 11, you mention different possible levels of federation.
>
> There's a federation going within the US for sites based on the Emulab
> software. So far, we have very simple policies for giving access to
> members of that federation, but it seems likely to me that the policy
> issues might need to get more complicated when federating over
> international boundaries. Do you have any thoughts on the types of
> policies you would want to enforce on, say, US-based researchers, that
> might be different from policies for local Korean researchers?

In the early stage of testbeds federation, it will be likely to enforce very
simple policy, ex) allow/disallow foreign users to access local testbed.
However, at the later stage, the administrators of each testbed may
tend to apply local policy and to give a restriction to foreign users.
These restrictions would be determined by policy negotiations such as
SLAs between testbeds.
It is necessary to preform more investigation in order to decide what kinds
of policy to be enforced, IMHO.

Regards,
Sangjin

>
> Thus spake Sangjin Jeong on Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:26:03PM +0900:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> We have been investigating the federation issues recently and got some
>> initial results.
>> We plan to prepare a documentation, but it would be helpful to solicit
>> reviews/comments
>> from the WG before drafting the document. We have requested a
>> presentation slot in the
>> control framework WG during GEC6, but the agenda is already set and it
>> is not sure
>> if there will be some time to present this initial result.
>>
>> So, we would like to solicit comments from the mailing list.
>> The slides can be found from http://cclab.cnu.ac.kr/~yhchoi/etri/federation.pdf
>>
>> Any comment/review would be appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sangjin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> control-wg mailing list
>> control-wg@...
>> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
>

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

GEC6 Agenda for Control Framework Working Group meeting

2009-11-13T07:36:46Z

The Control Framework Working Group will meet Wednesday from 9:00AM to
11:00AM. The current (draft) agenda is below; the up-to-date version can
be found on the wiki at http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GEC6CFWGAgenda.

- Administrivia - Introduce new WG Chairs
- Framing Talks (30 minutes total)
* Rob Ricci (Utah/ProtoGENI): Current approaches
to resource representation
* Guido Appenzeller (Stanford/OpenFlow): Spiral
One integration experiences
* Jeff Chase (Duke/ORCA): Next-generation need
for scheduling, stitching, resource representation
* Steve Schwab (SPARTA/Security): Next-generation
need for identity and authentication services
- Panel discussion (60 minutes)
* Guido Appenzeller (Stanford/OpenFlow)
* Andy Bavier (Princeton/PlanetLab)
* Jeff Chase (Duke/ORCA)
* Aaron Falk (GPO)
* Rob Ricci (Utah/ProtoGENI)
* Steve Schwab (SPARTA/Security)
* Ivan Seskar (Rutgers/WINLAB/ORBIT)
- Wrap-up and next steps (15 minutes)

--
Dr. Christopher Small 617.873.6261 (vox)
GENI Project Office www.geni.net 617.873.6091 (fax)
BBN Technologies | MS 6/5C | 10 Moulton St | Cambridge MA, 02138

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Agenda for the Experimenter Services and Tools WG Meeting at the GEC 6.

2009-11-12T19:03:04Z

The agenda for the Experimenter Tools and Services WG meeting has been
posted on the GENI wiki and is available at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GEC6ServicesWGAgenda.

The current agenda is as follows (pl. see the wiki for the latest version):

3.30pm - 3.35pm: Introduction to the WG - Vic Thomas
3.35pm - 3.45pm: Service Composition Experiment with FIRST@PC OMX Toolkit
and MediaX Testbed - JongWon Kim
3.45pm - 4.45pm: GENI Experimenters Presentations
3.45pm: Felix Wu - Social Networking Apps and Gaming
4.00pm: Emmanuel or David - Data Intensive Applications
4.15pm: Sonia Fahmy - Shared Measurement Services
4.30pm: TBD
4.45pm - 5.15pm: Control Framework Panel: What we can/can't support
Panelists: Larry Peterson, Rob Ricci, Jeff Chase, Ivan Seskar
5:15pm - 5:30pm: Wrap-up - Outbrief Presentation and Discussion of WG
Findings

< Vic Thomas

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

TridentCom

2009-11-12T14:13:57Z

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TridentCom
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:51:20 -0500
From: Jeff Chase <chase@...>

We would like to encourage GENI participants to submit papers about
their work to TridentCom, the international conference on network
testbeds. The deadline has been extended until after GEC.

TridentCom 2010
Title: 6th International Conference on Testbeds and Research
Infrastructures for the Development of Networks and Communities
Submission Deadline: 2009-11-22
Webpage: http://www.tridentcom.org
Dates: May 18-20, 2010
Location: Berlin, Germany

Synopsis:
The convergence and evolution of networks and services is driving a need
for flexible experimentation environments that respond to a large and
diverse set of requirements. Major programs around the globe have
started to develop and deploy large-scale testbeds, including GENI in
the U.S., FIRE in Europe, AKARI, CNGI, and others in Asia. The testbeds
range from small dedicated environments up to large-scale environments
that should exhibit properties anticipated by the future network.
TridentCom 2010 is a forum to explore existing and planned testbed
concepts, infrastructures, and tools.

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

GEC6 Draft agenda for OMIS on wiki

2009-11-12T12:40:00Z

The draft agenda for OMIS at GEC6 is available on the wiki at

http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/Gec6OmisAgenda

with a link from the main OMIS WG wiki page. We are once again
soliciting Lightning Talks, 5-10 minutes, no slides required. We are
particularly interested in having newly added projects talk a little
about their project and especially about their envisioned integration
(the I in OMIS) process, since that's caused problems for many of the
Spiral 1 projects.

-MAP

_______________________________________________
omis-wg mailing list
omis-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/omis-wg

From forum: GENI OMIS WG

Re: Initial investigation result of federation issues

2009-11-12T09:31:48Z

PlanetLab has had to address federation policies issues with our
international partners. Supporting different policies is a barrier-to-entry
for many people that want to contribute resources to the global effort.
To this end, we have developed a policy engine and an interface that
lets admins define policies for their aggregates. I'm attaching a draft
paper that describes our approach. Comments are most welcome.
(You can also find the code at svn.planet-lab.org.)

Larry

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Sangjin Jeong <sjjeong@...> wrote:

Hello folks,

We have been investigating the federation issues recently and got some
initial results.
We plan to prepare a documentation, but it would be helpful to solicit
reviews/comments
from the WG before drafting the document. We have requested a
presentation slot in the
control framework WG during GEC6, but the agenda is already set and it
is not sure
if there will be some time to present this initial result.

So, we would like to solicit comments from the mailing list.
The slides can be found from http://cclab.cnu.ac.kr/~yhchoi/etri/federation.pdf

Any comment/review would be appreciated.

Regards,
Sangjin

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

paper.pdf (124K) Download Attachment

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: Initial investigation result of federation issues

2009-11-12T07:35:51Z

Sangjin, Rob --
Following this line of thought further -- perhaps the interesting thing
that Sangjin and his colleagues might be able to share are the policies
that they have already been using on their own testbed -- or the
policies they would *like* to apply, both within their own local
testbed, across various Korean testbeds that might be viewed as a
Korean-GENI, and at the larger-scale of GENI-FIRE-Korea-Japan...

To be very concrete, how can Sangjin's testbed connect to the current
protoGENI/Internet2 infrastructure? Is there anything special we might
have to do regarding allocation policy for the network path between an
Internet2 PoP and the wide-area research network Sangjin's testbed
connects to?

Thanks,

--Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: control-wg-bounces@... [mailto:control-wg-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Robert P Ricci
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:34 AM
To: Sangjin Jeong
Cc: control-wg@...
Subject: Re: [cwg] Initial investigation result of federation issues

On Slide 11, you mention different possible levels of federation.

There's a federation going within the US for sites based on the Emulab
software. So far, we have very simple policies for giving access to
members of that federation, but it seems likely to me that the policy
issues might need to get more complicated when federating over
international boundaries. Do you have any thoughts on the types of
policies you would want to enforce on, say, US-based researchers, that
might be different from policies for local Korean researchers?

Thus spake Sangjin Jeong on Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:26:03PM +0900:

http://cclab.cnu.ac.kr/~yhchoi/etri/federation.pdf

>
> Any comment/review would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Sangjin
>
> _______________________________________________
> control-wg mailing list
> control-wg@...
> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: Initial investigation result of federation issues

2009-11-12T05:34:16Z

On Slide 11, you mention different possible levels of federation.

There's a federation going within the US for sites based on the Emulab
software. So far, we have very simple policies for giving access to
members of that federation, but it seems likely to me that the policy
issues might need to get more complicated when federating over
international boundaries. Do you have any thoughts on the types of
policies you would want to enforce on, say, US-based researchers, that
might be different from policies for local Korean researchers?

Thus spake Sangjin Jeong on Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:26:03PM +0900:

> Hello folks,
>
> We have been investigating the federation issues recently and got some
> initial results.
> We plan to prepare a documentation, but it would be helpful to solicit
> reviews/comments
> from the WG before drafting the document. We have requested a
> presentation slot in the
> control framework WG during GEC6, but the agenda is already set and it
> is not sure
> if there will be some time to present this initial result.
>
> So, we would like to solicit comments from the mailing list.
> The slides can be found from http://cclab.cnu.ac.kr/~yhchoi/etri/federation.pdf
>
> Any comment/review would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Sangjin
>
> _______________________________________________
> control-wg mailing list
> control-wg@...
> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Initial investigation result of federation issues

2009-11-11T03:26:03Z

Hello folks,

We have been investigating the federation issues recently and got some
initial results.
We plan to prepare a documentation, but it would be helpful to solicit
reviews/comments
from the WG before drafting the document. We have requested a
presentation slot in the
control framework WG during GEC6, but the agenda is already set and it
is not sure
if there will be some time to present this initial result.

So, we would like to solicit comments from the mailing list.
The slides can be found from http://cclab.cnu.ac.kr/~yhchoi/etri/federation.pdf

Any comment/review would be appreciated.

Regards,
Sangjin

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

GEC6

2009-10-21T13:37:13Z

It's time to register for GEC6. We need you to get your hotel
reservations in before the block expires. Please register for the
conference and reserve your hotel rooms now. It is possible to pay and
change your reservations later but we don't want to loose the room block.

Link:
https://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Register/IdentityConfirmation.aspx?e=6a0523bd-f714-471b-a445-c80dcf993e79

See you in SLC,

--aaron

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

Re: Experimenter Tools and Services: Spiral 1 Capabilities.

2009-10-12T07:58:50Z

Re: [services-wg] Experimenter Tools and Services: Spiral 1 Capabilities. Justin,

You bring up a good point about including in the document tools such as those from Million Node GENI. The plan for this document was to catalog tools and services available from each of the 5 control frameworks for creating slices, provisioning them and running experiments. We were not thinking of tools from aggregate providers (e.g. Million Node GENI, CMU testbed, Kansei, etc). Correct me if I’m wrong, but tools from an aggregate will primarily be concerned with programming resources (slivers) from that aggregate and with aggregate specific experiment control functions . These tools won’t be used to register and authenticate GENI users, create slices, etc.

That said, many of the aggregates coming into GENI (including Million Node GENI) are standalone testbeds in their own right and already have a suite of experimenter tools. It is a good idea for the Experimenter Workflow Tools and Services WG to look at these tools and borrow concepts/tools from these testbeds. Perhaps this can be something we discuss at one of the upcoming GECs just as we looked at tools/services from the control frameworks at the last GEC.

Others pl. feel free to chime in with your comments/thoughts.

< Vic

On Oct 9 5:51 PM, "Justin Cappos" <justinc@...> wrote:

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but there is a lot of stuff related to Seattle / MillionNodeGENI that isn't included.

Should it be?

Thanks,
Justin

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Vicraj Thomas <vthomas@...> wrote:

A survey of Experimenter Tools and Services from each of the Spiral 1
clusters has been posted at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/ExperimentLifecycleDocument/Spir
al1-Capabilities-appendix.pdf <http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/ExperimentLifecycleDocument/Spir%0Aal1-Capabilities-appendix.pdf> . This survey will be an appendix to the
Lifecycle of a GENI Experiment document that was published and reviewed
earlier this year.

Pl. review this document and email any comments/suggestions you might have
to me and to this mailing list.

Thanks!

< Vic

--
Vicraj Thomas, Ph.D.
BBN Technologies, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Ste 630
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Office: +1 952 545 5721
Mobile: +1 651 373 0287
Fax: + 1 952 545 5727

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

Experimenter Tools and Services: Spiral 1 Capabilities.

2009-10-09T14:43:08Z

A survey of Experimenter Tools and Services from each of the Spiral 1
clusters has been posted at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/ExperimentLifecycleDocument/Spir
al1-Capabilities-appendix.pdf. This survey will be an appendix to the
Lifecycle of a GENI Experiment document that was published and reviewed
earlier this year.

Pl. review this document and email any comments/suggestions you might have
to me and to this mailing list.

Thanks!

< Vic

--
Vicraj Thomas, Ph.D.
BBN Technologies, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Ste 630
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Office: +1 952 545 5721
Mobile: +1 651 373 0287
Fax: + 1 952 545 5727

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

Re: GEC#2 hotel & registration

2009-09-03T01:53:15Z

Aaron Falk wrote:

GENI Engineering Conference #2
------------------------------

This is a reminder that the GPO is holding a block of rooms the nights
of March 2nd and 3rd at $201/night at the Westin Arlington Gateway for
GEC attendees. (For comparison: The best Westin advertised rate for
those nights is $379.) The block is reserved under the label "GENI
Conference". Reservations must be made before ***February 15th*** to
get this rate.

wonderful! thanks for the info..

[url=http://simulationcreditauto.org][color=#FFFFFF][u] simulation credit auto comparatif voiture taux pret automobile [/u][/color][/url][color=#FFFFFF]financiers ont mis à la disposition des particuliers la simulation crédit auto[/color][url=http://simulationcreditauto.org][color=#FFFFFF][u] simulation credit auto comparatif voiture taux pret automobile [/u][/color][/url]

Westin Arlington Gateway:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1513

Also, don't forget to pre-register for the GEC conference itself.
***There will be no onsite registration.***

GEC#2 registration:
https://www.regonline.com/gec2

GEC#2 logistics and agenda:
http://www.geni.net/GEC2/GEC2.html

--aaron

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@geni.net
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg

From forum: GENI End-user Opt-in WG

CfP: IJCNDS – Special Issue on Network Virtualization: Concepts and Performance Aspects

2009-08-25T15:09:31Z

Call for Papers:

International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems
(IJCNDS) – Special Issue on Network Virtualization – Concepts and
Performance Aspects

ISSN (Online): 1754-3924 - ISSN (Print): 1754-3916
Guest Editors: Prof. Kurt Tutschku, University of Vienna, Austria; Prof.
Paul Müller, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany; Dr. Frédéric Dang
Tran, France Telecom, France.

URL of CfP: http://fc.cs.univie.ac.at/

Topic:

Network virtualization is the technology that allows the simultaneous
operation of multiple logical networks (also known as overlays) on a
single physical platform. Network virtualization permits distributed
participants to create almost instantly their own network with
application-specific naming, routing, and resource management mechanisms
such as server virtualization enables users to use even a whole
computing center arbitrarily as their own personal computer. Recently,
network virtualization received tremendous attention since it is
expected to be one of the major paradigms for the future Internet as
proposed by numerous international initiatives on future networks, e.g.
PlanetLab (USA, International), GENI (USA), AKARI (JAPAN), OneLab2
(Europe) and G-Lab (Germany).

Network virtualization is a rather new technology with performance
aspects not yet eminent but expected to grow with its spreading
application, the scaling of this new type of virtual networks, and the
dynamics of invoking them. These new performance aspects may comprise
the quality of isolation, fairness among virtual systems, the location
transparency of virtual services, the quality of synthetic virtual
resources, and the scalability of the composition of virtual network and
service and of the management mechanisms for virtual network and their
communication patterns.
As a follow-up of the successful 20th ITC Specialist Seminar on Network
Virtualization (Hoi An, Vietnam, 20.-21. May 2009), the objective of
this special issue of the IJCNDS is to address techniques,
architectures, performance models, and performance engineering methods
leading to real world network virtualization solutions that provide
users with efficient techniques for creating and operating their own
high performance virtual network.

Topics of interest are amongst others, but not limited to:
- Performance issues of virtualization techniques on routers and end hosts
o Isolation and fairness for the resource access among multiple guest
systems on a single host
o Performance issues of virtualized operating systems and server
virtualization
o Performance metrics for virtualized hosts or routers
o Measurement techniques, e.g. for the parallel throughput on a single
host
o Performance evaluation of virtualized packet switching technologies
o Middleware for virtualization
- Performance issues of bandwidth and resource virtualization techniques
o Media access mechanisms for network virtualization in wireline and
wireless environments
o Performance of Multiqueue Network Interfaces
o Fairness among overlays using the same transmission system
o Scheduling mechanisms for virtualized connections
o Models for resource contention between virtual networks
- Performance issues of overlays for future network architectures
o Performance of overlay composition
o Performance assessment of grid computing platforms
o Performance of content/data-oriented routing
o Stability, robustness and resilience of overlays, virtual networks
and self-organizing mechanisms
o Static and time-dependent topology/resource/user models for overlays
o Metrics for adaptation and dynamics in overlays
o Mechanisms, Capabilities and Accuracy of Network Coordinate Systems
(NCS)
o Traffic engineering for virtual networks
o QoS and Quality-of-Experience (QoE) in overlays
- Performance of virtualized transport mechanisms
o Performance of multi-source download
o Path selection, path splicing in overlays
o Engineering for path combination
- Performance of virtualized services and virtualized applications
o Traffic models of virtualized services and applications (e.g. w.r.t.
QoE)
o Performance of security mechanisms in virtualized network environments
o Performance of virtualization technologies for Grid Computing and
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
o Performance of Virtual Storages
- Virtual Test Labs and Network Federation
o Capability and performance and of network emulation
o Performance of virtual network management mechanisms
o Performance and management of federation points / gateways /
interconnects
o Measurements in deploy virtualized networks

Submissions: Electronic submission of PDF files can be done using the
EasyChair system

http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ijcndssinv2010

Important Dates:
Submission Deadline: 30.10.2009
Notification of Acceptance: 01.12.2009
Camera-ready Version: 15.12.2009
Publication: Early 2010

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

CFP: Real Overlays and Distributed Systems (ROADS'09)

2009-08-24T13:16:15Z

[Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

--------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION & CALL FOR DEMOS
--------------------------------------------------------
ROADS'2009
The 4th International Workshop on Real Overlays and Distributed Systems
October 14, 2009, Big Sky, Montana, USA.
Sponsored by: ACM SIGOPS, co-located with SOSP'09
http://roads.mytestbed.net

The ROADS workshop organizers cordially invite you to attend the 4th International
Workshop on Real Overlays and Distributed Systems, which will be held in the city
of Big Sky, Montana, U.S.A. on October 14, 2009.

The list of accepted papers is available online at:
http://roads.mytestbed.net/#program

Early registration is before September 1st. For details see
http://www.sigops.org/sosp/sosp09/registration.html

ROADS '09 will host demonstrations, with the purpose of allowing the participants
to the workshop to demonstrate 'live' their contributions. The demonstrations are
not limited to contributions associated with papers that are presented in the workshop.
We encourage the demonstration of contributions related to the workshop topics with
a primarily focus on engaging people in discussion.

Interested contributors should send a one paragraph description of their demonstration
to roads-sosp@... before September 14. The workshop organizers reserves
the right to select the demos that will be presented within the time limited session.
Authors of selected demonstrations are encouraged to send a two page description of
their demo. This description will be published on the workshop web site.

The demonstrations will be presented sequentially to the audience in a dedicated session.
Presentation time is limited to 10-15 minutes per demonstration. It is not confirmed yet
if and how good the internet connectivity at the workshop will be. It is therefore safe
to prepare an offline version of the demonstration.

Important dates related to the call for demos:

Demos Submission Deadline September 14, 2009
Demos Notification of acceptance September 17, 2009
Two Page Demo Description September 21, 2009
Workshop date October 14, 2009

------------------
Workshop Co-Chairs
------------------
Walid Dabbous INRIA
Max Ott NICTA

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

GENI Experimenter Workflow and Services Working Group Meeting at the GEC5.

2009-07-24T11:12:51Z

The Services WG met on Tuesday July 21 at the GEC. The meeting was well
attended with over 30 participants. Meeting participants and speakers were
asked to address the following sets of questions:
- How are experiments specified in each of the Spiral 1 clusters? What
are the declarative and procedural aspects of this specification?
- How is this specification used by the tool chain available to
experimenters?
- What are the experimenter tools in one cluster that might be ported to
other control frameworks?
- What assumptions do tools make about the control framework? What
assumptions might be specific to their control framework?

Many of the tools described at the meeting were, in principle, control
framework independent though porting them to another control framework would
be non-trivial. However some of the tools described at the meeting have
been demonstrated to work with more than one control framework.

The meeting participants were asked to identify issues that cut across
working groups. Three such cross-cutting issues were identified: RSpecs,
experimenter identity and measurement.

Copies of slides presented at the meeting and the WG outbrief on
cross-cutting issues are at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/Gec5ServicesAgenda.

I thank all who participated in this meeting and encourage those who could
not attend to peruse the slides at the above URL.

< Vic

--
Vicraj Thomas, Ph.D.
BBN Technologies, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Ste 630
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Phone: +1 952 545 5721
Fax: + 1 952 545 5727

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

Draft Agenda for WG Meeting at GEC5.

2009-07-14T14:43:20Z

Dear colleagues,

The Experimenter Services and Tools Working Group will meet at the upcoming
GEC on Tuesday July 21 from 3.30pm to 5.30pm. Jeff Chase (WG chair) and I
would like this meeting to focus on the following topic areas:
- How are experiments specified in each of the Spiral 1 clusters? What
are the declarative and procedural aspects of this specification?
- How is this specification used by the tool chain available to
experimenters?
- What are the experimenter tools in one cluster that might be ported to
other control frameworks?
- What assumptions do tools make about the control framework? What
assumptions might be specific to their control framework?

To facilitate this discussion we've invited speakers from each of the five
Spiral 1 clusters to give a brief overview of the experimenter tools from
their cluster and to address the above questions for their cluster. We've
set aside 20 minutes for each cluster for presentations and discussions.

The following is a draft agenda for this meeting. Not all speakers have
confirmed their ability to speak at the meeting.
3.30pm - 3.45pm: Goals and deliverables of the WG; Documents status -
Vic Thomas
3.45pm - 4.05pm: ORBIT experimenter tools - Max Ott
4.05pm - 4.25pm: ORCA experimenter tools - Yufeng Xin and David Irwin
4.25pm - 4.45pm: ProtoGENI experimenter tools - Rob Ricci
4.45pm - 5.05pm: PlanetLab experimenter tools - Jeannie Albrecht
5.05pm - 5.25pm: TIED experimenter tools - Ted Faber
5.25pm - 5.30pm: Wrap-up

We'd appreciate your giving some thought to these topics and coming prepared
to participate in the discussions.

Thanks v. much. I look forward to seeing you next week.

< Vic Thomas

--
Vicraj Thomas, Ph.D.
BBN Technologies, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Ste 630
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Phone: +1 952 545 5721
Fax: + 1 952 545 5727

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

updated System Requirements Document

2009-07-14T14:39:35Z

I've posted a revision to the System Requirements Document (v2.0) at http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/SysReqDoc. Send feedback to this list or raise it during the Weds AM plenary session at the GEC5 meeting next week.

--aaron

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

From forum: GENI Discuss

DRAFT agenda for Substrate WG meeting at GEC5

2009-07-14T12:32:48Z

(I'm the new Substrate WG system engineer here at the GPO)

GENI Substrate WG Members, and interested GENI participants,

GEC5 will be held in Seattle:
From Monday 7/20 1pm, through Wednesday 7/22 12:30pm.

The Substrate Working Group will meet:
Tuesday 7/21 3:30pm - 5:30pm

The DRAFT agenda includes:

1) Welcome
Joe Evans and Patrick Crowley, Substrate WG co-chairs

2) Review of recent vertical and horizontal integration examples:

a) ORCA integration with BEN, including cross layer setup in
BEN, and setup of
VLANs through BEN and NLR (stitching)
Yufeng Xin, RENCI

b) ORBIT (OMF) integration with a WiMAX base station into
ORBIT
(vertical integration) and plans to connect WINLAB and NICTA sites via
I2, etc.
(horizontal integration)
Ray Raychaudhuri, WINLAB/Rutgers

(others pending)

3) Evolution of the substrate working group charter, and future of
substrate catalog
Joe Evans and Patrick Crowley

4) Introduction of new co-chair(s), effective GEC6.
Joe Evans and Patrick Crowley

5) Wrapup and review of action items
WG Systems Engineer

Are there other topics you would like to see discussed?

We hope to see you all in Seattle!

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mussman
Substrate WG Systems Engineer

GENI Project Office
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 873-4282 - Office
(781) 266-8479 - Mobile
(617) 873-4888 - Fax
hmussman@...
www.bbn.com

_______________________________________________
substrate-wg mailing list
substrate-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/substrate-wg

From forum: GENI Substrate WG

Control Framework Working Group Meeting GEC5

2009-07-14T11:56:39Z

I'm the new system engineer for the Control Framework Working Group at
the GPO. Here is a draft agenda for the CFWG meeting that will be held
at GEC5 on Wednesday July 22 at 9:00AM. If you have any additional items
for the agenda, please let me know (csmall@...).

- Chris

1. Introduction of new workgroup chair(s). (Larry Peterson, Princeton;
John Wroclawski, ISI)

2. News from the GPO

(a) Status of control framework requirements document. (Christopher
Small, GPO)

(b) Identity management; quick overview of Shibboleth and InCommon.
(Christopher Small, GPO)

3. RSpecs and network stitching

(a) Summary of RSpec discussion at meeting held in Chicago on 6/25/09
(Larry Peterson, Princeton)

(b) Summary of network stitching discussion at meeting held in Chicago
6/25/09

(c) Network stitching in ProtoGENI, (Rob Ricci, University of Utah)

(d) Networkng stitching in ORCA/BEN, (Yufeng Xin, RENCI)

--
Dr. Christopher Small 617.873.6261 (vox)
GENI Program Office www.geni.net 617.873.6091 (fax)
BBN Technologies | MS 6/5C | 10 Moulton St | Cambridge MA, 02138

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

First draft of OMIS agenda for GEC5

2009-07-13T13:55:04Z

GEC5 is next week. OMIS will be meeting Tuesday from 3:30 to 5:30
(last session of the day). The first draft of the agenda has been
posted (see http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/Gec5OmisAgenda, or follow
link from main GEC5 agenda), and is copied below. Any comments or
suggestions are welcome. We hope this will be much more of a
"working" session. We aren't planning large presentations, but only a
few slides (if any) to spark discussion on various OMIS related
topics.

-MAP (OMIS WG SE)

----------------------------------------------------------------
= ''Draft'' Agenda for OMIS meeting at GEC5 =

The fifth [http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/Gec5Agenda GENI
Engineering Conference] will be held in Seattle, WA from July 20 to
22, 2009. The OMIS WG will meet from 3:30 to 5:30 pm on Tuesday, July
21. This is the ''draft'' agenda for what we will do during that
time. In particular, the order and amount of time are just guesses.
This is already tight on time, but any suggestions for other topics
that should be added, or lightning talks you'd like to do, can be sent
to the [mailto:HPD@... Chair]/[mailto:MAP@... SE] or to the
[mailto:OMIS-WG@... mailing list] for discussion.

== Agenda ==
* Administrivia - WG Chair (Heidi Picher Dempsey) 5 mins
* Introduction, agenda bashing and orientation
* Integration status
* Network (Mike Patton) 15 mins
* Operations (Jon-Paul Herron) 15 mins
* Security (Stephen Schwab) 15 mins
* Discussion starters
* Emergency Shutdown: operational concerns, security, etc. 30 mins
* Data sharing when the data is distributed 30 mins
* Distributed authorization (if time and not already covered)
* Lightning Talks (max 5 mins each)
* Quilt status update (Jen Leasure)
* others as time permits

_______________________________________________
omis-wg mailing list
omis-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/omis-wg

From forum: GENI OMIS WG

DRAFT agenda for End-User Opt-In WG meering at GEC5

2009-07-13T12:48:54Z

GENI Opt-In WG Members, and interested GENI participants,

GEC5 will be held in Seattle:
From Monday 7/20 1pm, through Wednesday 7/22 12:30pm.

The Opt-In Working Group will meet:
Tuesday 7/21 3:30pm - 5:30pm

The DRAFT agenda includes:

Review and discussion of GENI opt-in scenarios, with emphasis on
Spiral 1.
(organized by Justin Cappos and Harry Mussman)

Discussion and review of GENI structure of agreements and policies,
including DRAFT document
Harry Mussman

Review of WG meeting in NYC, including various key issues and DRAFT
overview document.
Henning Schulzrinne, Opt-In WG Co-Chair

Introduction of new co-chair(s), effective GEC6
Henning Schulzrinne

Wrapup and review of action items
Harry Mussman

Are there other topics you would like to see discussed?

We hope to see you all in Seattle!
(I would appreciate your email indicating that you will attend this
Opt-In WG meeting - we would like to get a count.)

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mussman
End-User Opt-In Systems Engineer

GENI Project Office
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 873-4282 - Office
(781) 266-8479 - Mobile
(617) 873-4888 - Fax
hmussman@...
www.bbn.com

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg

From forum: GENI End-user Opt-in WG

OMIS working group call

2009-07-10T11:53:17Z

We will have a teleconference next Monday 7/13 from 2:30-3:30PM EDT to
discuss plans for the upcoming OMIS working group meeting at GEC5. If
you have any suggestions for the meeting in Seattle, or if you would
like to speak at the meeting, please be sure to dial in. Suggestions
via the mailing list are always welcome as well.

Dial-in info:
(866) 453-5550
Partic. Pin: 4873431#

_______________________________________________
omis-wg mailing list
omis-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/omis-wg

From forum: GENI OMIS WG

GPO office hours at GEC5

2009-07-07T08:23:05Z

Just a reminder. The GENI Project Office will be holding office hours
from noon - 5pm at GEC5. Send me an email if you'd like to schedule
some discussion time with members of the GPO.

--aaron

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

GEC 5 deadline is here....

2009-06-22T13:12:20Z

GENI colleagues,

A quick reminder - the GEC 5 deadline is now upon us.....

Register now - the hotel deadline is this coming Monday,
June 29, 2009. Here's the link:

http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summary.aspx?e=229ff60b-1186-4c04-9bd5-86e325811d67

If you miss that date, you'll pay a stiff penalty in
hotel room costs!

cheers,

- Chip

PS. GEC 5 will be July 20-22 in Seattle, Washington.

_______________________________________________
geni-announce mailing list
geni-announce@...
List info: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/geni-announce
Unsubscribe: http://lists.geni.net/mailman/options/geni-announce/lists%40nabble.com?login-unsub

From forum: GENI Announcements

Notes from the review of the Instrumentation and Measurement System project's specification document.

2009-06-18T16:04:22Z

The document mentioned in the email below was reviewed on Tuesday June 16.
The notes from this review meeting are available at
http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/MeasurementSystem/GENI-GIMS-doc-
review-jun09.txt.

My thanks to all the people who read the document and participated in the
review. Special thanks to Mark Corvella for the meeting notes.

If you were not able to participate in the review you are still welcome to
email your comments to the document authors. Pl. copy your comments to the
services working group mailing list (services-wg@...).

Thank you very much!

< Vic

On Jun 5 4:27 PM, "Vicraj Thomas" <vthomas@...> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> You are invited to participate in a telephone review of the document titled
> "Requirements and Specifications for the Instrumentation and Measurement
> Systems for GENI" by Paul Barford (U. of Wisconsin), Mike Blodgett (U. of
> Wisconsin), Mark Corvella (Boston University) and Joel Sommers (Colgate
> University). The document is available at
> http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/MeasurementSystem/MeasurementSysSp
> ec.pdf.
>
> The review will be on Tuesday June 16 at 2pm ET. Call-in information will be
> sent 3-4 days before the review.
>
> Thanks v. much!
>
> < Vic Thomas

_______________________________________________
services-wg mailing list
services-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

From forum: GENI Experiment Workflow and Services WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-15T22:53:11Z

In theory, I agree to what you are proposing here, but

> The decision we've made for ProtoGENI is that when one validates an
> authentication certificate that claims "URN X is bound to public key
> A",
> the path by which that certificate is traceable to a trust root must
> be
> mirrored by the set of authorities in the URN. (eg. if I have a URN
> that
> contains "geni:us:utah:ricci", the authentication certificate that
> goes
> along with it better be signed by the "geni:us:utah" authority.)

in this specific example, there is authority information buried in the
identifier. How would you deal when you move to a different
organization? Wouldn't your URN change at that point to something like
"geni:us:new_org:ricci"? If so, the problem, I stated in one of the
emails prior to this, of how other sub-systems would know that your id
has changed still persists. And, I think, non-persistent user ids
would result in fragile systems.

One of the ways we deal with this problem is by making the identifiers
non-semantic and trusting the system that binds those identifiers with
authentication information. The trusted system enforces who can change
the information bound (e.g, public key) to those identifiers. To deal
with who is vetting those identifiers, we can have the vetting
entities sign the bound information (public key). The signatures may
be placed along with the public key in the system. So, when parties
try to authenticate a user with id, they would resolve the id and get
the public key and the signatures. The reason the party authenticated
this user successfully, now, is because the party (1) first trusted
the system, (2) verified that the user had the corresponding private
key, and/or (3) verified that one of the signatures is from a trusted
entity.

Although, trusting a system could be a huge thing, we have the luxury
of saying that this system is the Handle System - the one very well
implemented, and vetted by big shots :-)

Thanks.
Giridhar

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-15T14:51:20Z

Thus spake Giridhar Manepalli on Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:38:17AM -0400:
> Here, the assumption is that the entity issuing the URN (identifier)
> would be the entity issuing the certificate. How reasonable is this
> assumption?

That's right, and this is an explicit design decision on our part.

The "certificate" here might be better named an "authentication
certificate" since its sole purpose is to bind authentication material
(eg. a public key) to a URN.

In the SFA-style GID, where a public key is part of the identity, the
authentication material is by definition issuable only by the issuer of
the GID (since it's part of the GID).

We we remove the authentication material from the identifier, the
question now becomes "who is able to bind authentication material to
this identifier"? That is, if someone presents, say, a CM, with a URN X
and a statement of the form "URN X is bound to public key A", how do you
decide whether or not to accept that statement? If the CM accepted such
a statement from just anyone, it's trivially easy to hijack an account -
if I want to pretend to be Giridhar, I just make myself a new key pair
and a statement that says it belongs to you, and the CM will happily let
me pretend to be you. We can tighten this up, and say that the statement
has to be traceable through some chain of authorities to a trust root,
but by itself, this still doesn't give us a lot: any authority in the
system can issue such statements for any object. (eg. the US GENI could
hijack accounts "belonging" to its European federate)

The decision we've made for ProtoGENI is that when one validates an
authentication certificate that claims "URN X is bound to public key A",
the path by which that certificate is traceable to a trust root must be
mirrored by the set of authorities in the URN. (eg. if I have a URN that
contains "geni:us:utah:ricci", the authentication certificate that goes
along with it better be signed by the "geni:us:utah" authority.)

Certainly, our choice is not the only possible one, but we think it
strikes a good balance. It hasn't actually added any restrictions that
weren't there in the SFA GID, and it keeps the scope of trust narrow:
the "damage" a buggy, compromised, or malicious authority can cause is
limited to the identifiers that it itself created.

> Further, by extension, would you assume that the same
> entity would issue the credentials, policies, and other forms of
> security information? If the answer is "no", why would you tie the URN
> issuing entity with the certificate issuing entity, and not other
> security related issuers?

Certainly, "no". Credentials, etc. are authorization information, and
the "authentication certificate" is authentication information. So they
definitely should be treated differently. Anybody should be able to give
me resources if they want (authorization), but not everybody should be
able to "change my password" (by binding my URN to a different public
key) (authentication).

--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-15T07:38:17Z

Here's an interesting point - one of the properties that appeals to us
about the URNs proposed by the GMOC is that they have a little bit of
semantic information in them - the URN contains the identifier of the
authority that issued the URN. This way, when I get an authentication
certificate that says "URN A is associated with public key X", I can
check to see if the issuer of the certificate is the same entity that
issued URN A. This way, buggy, malicious, or subverted authorities
cannot issue authentication certificates for others' users, components,
etc.

Here, the assumption is that the entity issuing the URN (identifier) would be the entity issuing the certificate. How reasonable is this assumption? Further, by extension, would you assume that the same entity would issue the credentials, policies, and other forms of security information? If the answer is "no", why would you tie the URN issuing entity with the certificate issuing entity, and not other security related issuers? If the answer is "yes", URN issuing entity becomes the central point of failure. Isn't it?

My two cents.

Giridhar

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-15T05:58:45Z

The URN proposal and details can be found at:
http://gmoc.grnoc.iu.edu/https/globalnoc/gmoc/file-bin/urn-proposal2.pdf

In short we noticed the problem of bundling of authentication and
identification
in the SFA documents and tried to figure out a way do separate these.

We prefer 'semantic' aware identifiers because otherwise we would require
to build a secure and highly-available resolver service in whose trust
properties
would be appropriate for all applications. (ie the trust chain should be
acceptable
by all participating entities).

Camilo

Robert P Ricci wrote:

> Thus spake Max Ott on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:55:13PM +1000:
>
>> On 12/06/2009, at 2:15 PM, Giridhar Manepalli wrote:
>>
>>> We extend ProtoGENI's notion (of separating identity and
>>> authentication/authorization) in all of our projects by separating the
>>> identity (of entities) from any of the varying and contextual
>>> attributes/processes. Identifiers, then, are generally opaque and non-
>>> semantic, and may be used to identify any entity/resource
>>> (individuals, documents, processes, etc.).
>>>
>> 'non-semantic' - I like that. Do you have a more detailed write-up
>> available somewhere?
>>
>
> Here's an interesting point - one of the properties that appeals to us
> about the URNs proposed by the GMOC is that they have a little bit of
> semantic information in them - the URN contains the identifier of the
> authority that issued the URN. This way, when I get an authentication
> certificate that says "URN A is associated with public key X", I can
> check to see if the issuer of the certificate is the same entity that
> issued URN A. This way, buggy, malicious, or subverted authorities
> cannot issue authentication certificates for others' users, components,
> etc.
>
> (This can be chained - eg. an authority can create a sub-authority, and
> that sub-authority's identifier includes its "parent"'s identifier. URNs
> share this property with the domain-name looking HRNs that have showed
> up in some places like the SFA doc.)
>
>

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-12T16:18:29Z

Thus spake Max Ott on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:55:13PM +1000:

> On 12/06/2009, at 2:15 PM, Giridhar Manepalli wrote:
> > We extend ProtoGENI's notion (of separating identity and
> > authentication/authorization) in all of our projects by separating the
> > identity (of entities) from any of the varying and contextual
> > attributes/processes. Identifiers, then, are generally opaque and non-
> > semantic, and may be used to identify any entity/resource
> > (individuals, documents, processes, etc.).
>
> 'non-semantic' - I like that. Do you have a more detailed write-up
> available somewhere?

Here's an interesting point - one of the properties that appeals to us
about the URNs proposed by the GMOC is that they have a little bit of
semantic information in them - the URN contains the identifier of the
authority that issued the URN. This way, when I get an authentication
certificate that says "URN A is associated with public key X", I can
check to see if the issuer of the certificate is the same entity that
issued URN A. This way, buggy, malicious, or subverted authorities
cannot issue authentication certificates for others' users, components,
etc.

(This can be chained - eg. an authority can create a sub-authority, and
that sub-authority's identifier includes its "parent"'s identifier. URNs
share this property with the domain-name looking HRNs that have showed
up in some places like the SFA doc.)

--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG

Re: What are GIDs good for?

2009-06-12T16:09:18Z

Thus spake Max Ott on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:29:13PM +1000:

>
> On 12/06/2009, at 9:23 AM, Robert P Ricci wrote:
> >Right, I think the decision that a GID decouples authentication and
> >authorization is pretty clear.
>
> Unfortunately thats is not so clear to me.
>
> In http://www.protogeni.net/trac/protogeni/wiki/AuthImpl it says:
>
> ... each of the principle objects in Protogeni has a unique UUID and
> thus a certificate (GID) associated with it. In most cases these
> certificates are used for identity purposes, not authentication (as in
> an SSL session).
>
> So what does it buy me to have some ID which has been issued by someone?

Yeah, sorry, that page is out of date, written before we started moving
to URNs - we're making that change specifically to separate out
identity and authentication. I'll fix it up.

Once we have our URNs implemented, it will read like this:

"""
... each of the principal objects in Protogeni has a unique URN
associated with it. The authority that issued the URN may issue
certificates binding authentication material to that URN: for example,
to supply the object's public key for authenticating SSL session.
"""

I'm trying to avoid calling our URNs "GIDs", since what exactly a GID
*is* has become so confused. But the point is that the URN is a unique
identifier that I'd use to indicate which component I'm talking about,
which user I'm giving a credential to, etc.

> Later it says: ... When Joe asks his Slice Authority to create this
> new slice, a new credential is formed that includes, among other items:
> Joe's GID (UUID, HRN, email)
> MySlice's GID (UUID, HRN, email)
> A list of tokens

And to be clear, when we move to URN's, this will read:

Joe's URN
MySlice's URN
A list of tokens

> A digital signature (I assume that the digital signature is that of
> the Slice Authority)

Your assumption is correct, I'll clarify it on the page.

> Now that makes sense to me. Someone (the Slice Authority) asserts that
> Joe can perform some action (tokens) on MySlice. Now if Joe request a
> service S to perform an action on the slice, S can now check if the
> requester is the Joe in the assertion,

And with the identity and authentication separated, the way that the S
will check that "the requester is the Joe in the assertion" is that the
assertion will contain Joe's identifier (his URN), and Joe will present
an authentication certificate that says, essentially "Joe's URN (the
same one that was in the credential) is associated with public key X".
This certificate must be signed by the authority that issued Joe's HRN
in the first place (more on that in another mail...), and S will
challenge Joe to be sure he has the associated private key.

> the action is authorized and it
> accepts the authority of the signer of the assertion.

> (To be a
> stickler, I would have expected the (G)ID of the Slice Authority as
> part of that assertion, with the signature for authentication)

The SA's identifier is in the signature, but you're right, it would
probably be good to make 'issuer' a first class field in the credential.

> Now I can potentially chain things by adding an additional assertion
> which transfers the right to use MySlice to Alice. Obviously this
> needs to be signed by Joe and the first assertion may need to include
> permission to do that (delegation).

Yup, and this is exactly what we do:
https://www.protogeni.net/trac/protogeni/wiki/DelegationExample

> But again, what do I need beyond a handle?

I'd say that what you need is an identifier, to avoid the specific
semantics attached to the word "handle" (as seen in the other
sub-thread...)

> The only thing I can think
> of is a reference to a handle's credentials (public key) if it is
> signing something (that's why I was asking about who signed the above).
>
> -max

--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg

From forum: GENI Control Framework WG