[ESDS] [Fwd: Re: ESDS BOF approved, and comments]
Ali Rezafard <arezafar@ca.afilias.info> Wed, 06 February 2008 02:40 UTC
Return-Path: <esds-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-esds-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-esds-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8073A68BF;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108,
BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 6vJtPXfrGW3P; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A723A6846;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8102D3A6846
for <esds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ztMdH5gWnFt6 for <esds@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.ca.afilias.info (vgateway.libertyrms.info [207.219.45.62])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A093A6837
for <esds@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dev20.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.3.167])
by mx4.ca.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1JMaED-0002Zd-C5
for esds@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:41:37 -0500
Message-ID: <47A91E7D.3060104@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:42:05 -0500
From: Ali Rezafard <arezafar@ca.afilias.info>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: esds@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080704010905070608060800"
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: arezafar@ca.afilias.info
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [ESDS] [Fwd: Re: ESDS BOF approved, and comments]
X-BeenThere: esds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of the ESDS \(Extensible Supplychain Discovery Service\)"
<esds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>,
<mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/esds>
List-Post: <mailto:esds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>,
<mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: esds-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: esds-bounces@ietf.org
Forwarding because of mail server issues and the email not getting archived.
--- Begin Message ---Dear ESDS folks, I'm re-posting this message to the list. I sent it just over 14 hours ago (around 00.15 GMT on 5th February) to Lisa Dusseault, copied to Elwyn Davies, Jari Arkko and the esds@ietf.org mailing list - but it appears that no-one on the ESDS list received it. Hence the re-send now. Perhaps there is a problem with the listserver configuration that is blocking messages that are addressed to esds@ietf.org only in the Cc: field. Best regards, - Mark > Dear Lisa, > > Many thanks for informing us of the approval of the ESDS BOF > request. We would like to provide some responses to the useful > questions raised by Elwyn Davies and Jari Arkko. > > Best regards, > > - Mark Harrison > > > The following are answers (A) to the outstanding questions (Q) > posted to the ESDS mailing list with respect to the ESDS BOF and > Charter. > > Q)[Elwyn] The proposed charter appears enormous (17 work items). The > charter appears to envisage both the schema and the protocol work > (indeed at least 3 protocols). > > A)The proposed items of the Charter will be grouped as sub-items of > five major work items. Each work item is already well researched, > with initial protocols proposed by the EU BRIDGE research project > and published ESDS drafts. The ESDS Work Group needs to review and > validate the proposed protocols. Some sub-items can draw upon > existing protocols or be deferred if there are others working on the > problem domain (e.g. access control policy schema might be developed > by the EU BRIDGE project work package 4 (Security)). > > 1. Initial Conventions > a) Define common vocabulary and terminology > b) Define core data sets for sharing on Discovery Service, > including required data fields, optional data fields, and extensible > data fields (e.g. who, what, when, where, why, links, identifier, > lifecycle, class, etc.) > c) Define handling for time zones (e.g. accepting only UTC > timestamps vs. accepting timestamps with any timezone) > > 2. Security > a) Considerations for access control policies and their impact no > Work Items 3 and 4 > b) Define security architecture and mechanisms for authorization, > authentication , encryption (e.g. integrating security certificates > into the protocol vs. relying on a security layer such as SSL) > c) Define a common interface and roles for access control > configuration (e.g. supply chain, partner, user ) > > > 3. Publishing Interface > a) Define mechanism for uniquely identifying objects in a supply > chain without requiring a global unique identifier for each and all > objects that enter a supply chain > b) Define a protocol for advertising/publishing data resources > (Resource Discovery) > c) Define a protocol and policy for retracting or voiding published > data > d) Define policies for updating stale and broken links (e.g. for > records with a long retention period, it is vital that links can be > updated, when required) > > > 4. Query Interface > a) Define a protocol for querying published data, facilitating both > one-time queries and standing queries (e.g. pull vs. push queries) > b) Determine how aggregation and disaggregation events should be > handled including policies for access control and visibility of > these events (e.g. a pallet is broken down into boxes and each box > has its own destination supply chain) > c) Determine if multilayer information visibility is required (e.g. > a query with limited access can be informed of the existence of > information for a particular object, but to view the actual > information, full access privileges would be required. This has > particular implications for peer-to-peer searching across multiple > Discovery Services) > > > 5. DS-DS peer Communications Interface > a) Architect a bootstrapping policy for objects while ensuring > security and confidentiality > b) Define a peer-to-peer protocol to enable linking Discovery > Service servers together > > > > > Q)[Elwyn] Given the concerns about reusing/adapting/overloading DNS > I don't see much work in the charter relating to the distributed > storage system that probably needs to be addressed before designing > both the schema and the protocols - or maybe it is subsumed in item > 11.. but I would have thought that needed to come earlier. > > A) ESDS is intended to be purely an application layer protocol > disassociated from implementation specifics and challenges. The > problem statement hints at some of technical challenges certain > business requirements, however ESDS is not chartered to address > these implementation challenges. > > ESDS aims to minimize and offload the traffic off the DNS roots by > adopting successful peer-to-peer strategies such as XMPP. In our > vision of ESDS, the protocol will minimize reliance on DNS > infrastructure, although we may borrow concepts from NAPTR records > to distinguish between different kinds of services and may use URLs > (which require DNS resolution) to refer to the locations of > information services. > > > > Q)[Elwyn] The charter doesn't offer a timescale. > > A) Below is a proposed set of milestones based on collective > experiences and estimates: > April 2008, Submit a Draft for Initial Conventions > July 2008, Submit a Draft on Requirements for Security > September 2008, Submit a Draft on Requirements for Publishing > Interface > November 2008, Submit a RFC on Publishing Interface > January 2009, Submit a Draft on Requirements for Query Interface > March 2009, Submit a RFC on Query Interface > May 2009, Submit a Draft on Requirements for DS-DS peer > Communications Interface > July 2009, Submit a RFC on DS-DS peer Communications Interface > > > > > > Q)[Jari] I'm getting a little bit nervous about other SDOs that are > already working in this space. Would an IETF standard here have a > chance in succeeding? Who are the proponents of this work, and do > they represent entities that can drive this market to some direction? > > A) There is really only one other standards development organization > (SDO) with an interest in this space: EPCglobal. This SDO is doing > related work but with a tighter focus within a subscriber based > community, which supports unique identifiers based on GS1 system > identifiers. The work at the IETF deals with broader considerations > such as non-unique identifiers, and expert oversight as to the > impact on public networks (including DNS). Additionally, it gives > the ability to enlarge the participating community by allowing free > participation. Key Aerospace organizations such as SITA and Air > France have already indicated their support of the IETF effort. > SITA and Air France already have pilot environments operating on the > existing drafts. > > > > > Q)[Jari] If the existing standards have problems, are those problems > already being addressed somewhere? > > A) Discovery Services addresses a problem domain that is not covered > by any other protocol. Currently there are no existing protocols > intending to solve this problem. Discovery Services enables > authorized and authenticated users, to gather and retrieve links to > providers of complete lifecycle information about an object, which > is fragmented across the whole supply chain. There are related > standards such as ONS, EPCIS, and UDDI which deal with completely > different problem statements and domains. > > Object Naming Service (ONS) is a mechanism that leverages the Domain > Name System (DNS) to locate sources of authoritative information and > related services about a product when queried using a hostname > derived from the Electronic Product Code (EPC). As a Discovery > Service protocol it lacks access controls, authorization and > authentication. Also the volumes and commercial sensitivity of > serial-level records generated by the supply chains make it > unsuitable for serial-level link information. However, Discovery > Service can be used in collaboration with ONS to meet specific > business requirements. > > EPC Information Services (EPCIS) targets the sharing of data within > an established network of trust and relationships. Typically, a > company can provide an EPCIS query interface to allow trusted > partners to retrieve some of its data. It is not the role of EPCIS > to enable robust linking to information across the entire supply > chain or product lifecycle, nor to perform recursive 'proxy queries' > to retrieve data from other parties, nor to facilitate exception > handling and object bootstrapping across the whole supply chain. > > UDDI is a standard for description and discovery of services and the > functionality that they offer. In contrast with UDDI, ESDS is > concerned with locating services that provide information about a > specific physical object; the ID of a physical object is the primary > lookup key for ESDS, whereas UDDI is primarily queried for a > particular type of service functionality desired. Unlike UDDI > registries, the data held within ESDS may be much more commercially > sensitive because it could reveal volumes and flows of goods in > supply chains; from a security and scalability perspective, ESDS > therefore attempts to solve a more challenging problem than the > problem that UDDI already solves. > > > > Q)[Jari] I do not understand the market and political forces > involved in the interconnection of these tracking systems. I fear > that we may be surprised what is required beyond simple connection, > e.g., policies involving how information can be accessed via third > parties etc. > > A) Access control policies will need to be definable (e.g. using > existing standards such as XACML). The BRIDGE project work package > 4 (Security) are continuing to do work on this. British Telecom is > leading that work package. > > The protocol framework for access controls must be extensible and > flexible to address the need for customization. Similarly, the > protocol itself should allow for adequate extension to enable > handling of unforeseen use cases. ESDS will be a thin layer > providing a basic and universal set of information to service > (authenticated and authorized) users. This information could include > links to back-end business applications, information services or > public websites. It is not in the scope of ESDS to have any control > over the service hosted at the link. ESDS facilitates and enforces > authentication and authorization policies as defined by the business > requirements of each supply chain. > > > > Q)[Elwyn] Further to Dave's concerns about the constituency, are > there enough people interested in the project to carry through such > a large work program? > > Q)[Jari] The IETF would clearly have a lot of expertise in the > technology. Are there enough participants from this business section > that we understand well enough what the user perspectives are. We > don't necessarily need many if they are good ones, but we do need > some. > > A) There is great interest in Discovery Services and the problem > domain it addresses. There has already been extended research done > in this domain by the EU research project BRIDGE, which includes > members of the University of Cambridge, AT4 wireless, BT Research, > SAP Research, ETH Zurich, and GS1 UK. > The BRIDGE project has identified industrial drivers and regulatory > drivers for Discovery Services. Industries have expressed an > immediate need for deployment of Discovery Services in tracking of > reusable containers, consumer items, and airline baggage. Some of > the governmental and regulatory drivers are the UK Food safety act > 1990, the EU food regulation, the US bioterrorism act, FDA > Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and EFPIA regulations. > The document “EFPIA White Paper on Anticounterfeiting” outlines the > need for track and trace systems for the European medicine supply > chain to ensure safety and security of consumers. EFPIA and several > other organizations working in the Discovery Service domain will > make requirements documents public in the near future. > Food supply chain members, including manufacturers such as Benedicta > and retailers such as METRO are actively contributing to the > development of the Discovery Services protocol and are keen on its > deployment to meet regulatory and business needs. > The airline industry members SITA and Air France have expressed > great interest in this problem domain and are active contributors to > the ESDS list. There is great potential for ESDS to solve the > problem of lost luggage and enable aircraft part tracking from > manufacturing to part termination, which can span over 30 years > across multiple organizations. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >> The ESDS BOF request was approved by the IESG and IAB today, >> although the discussion raised quite a few questions not answered >> in the overview or drafts. I've forwarded one of the comments >> received (below) and I'm working with the other commenters on >> either forwarding their issues or scheduling a conversation with >> the draft authors. >> >> FYI, the date of the BOF meeting is not yet known, because the >> agenda has not yet been built. However, the Apps Area people >> traditionally meet Monday Morning and discuss various topics of >> interest. The Sunday reception is also a great time to meet people >> and arrange conversations for later in the week. >> >> Thanks, >> Lisa Dusseault >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> >>> Date: January 31, 2008 6:06:02 AM PST >>> To: IAB <iab@ietf.org>rg>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org> >>> Subject: ESDS BOF comments >>> >>> ...The proposed charter (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/esds/current/msg00020.html >>> ) >>> appears enormous (17 work items). >>> >>> The charter appears to envisage both the schema and the protocol >>> work (indeed at least 3 protocols). >>> >>> Given the concerns about reusing/adapting/overloading DNS I don't >>> see much work in the charter relating to the distributed storage >>> system that probably needs to be addressed before designing both >>> the schema and the protocols - or maybe it is subsumed in item >>> 11.. but I would have thought that needed to come earlier. >>> >>> The charter doesn't offer a timescale: Further to Dave's concerns >>> about the constituency, are there enough people interested in the >>> project to carry throigh such a large work program? >>> >>> Elwyn >> >> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >> Date: January 31, 2008 6:14:54 AM PST >> To: IAB <iab@iab.org>rg>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >> Subject: ESDS BOF Comments >> >> >> The problem is very interesting. I think it would be great if APPS >> worked on new applications infrastructure like this. >> >> However, I have a few question marks: >> >> 1) I'm getting a little bit nervous about other SDOs that are already >> working in this space. Would an IETF standard here have a chance in >> succeeding? Who are the proponents of this work, and do they >> represent >> entities that can drive this market to some direction? If the >> existing >> standards have problems, are those problems already being addressed >> somewhere? >> >> 2) I do not understand the market and political forces involved in >> the >> interconnection of these tracking systems. I fear that we may be >> surprised what is required beyond simple connection, e.g., policies >> involving how information can be accessed via third parties etc. >> >> 3) The IETF would clearly have a lot of expertise in the >> technology. Are >> there enough participants from this business section that we >> understand >> well enough what the user perspectives are. We don't necessarily need >> many if they are good ones, but we do need some. >> >> Jari > _______________________________________________ ESDS mailing list ESDS@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ ESDS mailing list ESDS@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds
- [ESDS] ESDS BOF approved, and comments Lisa Dusseault
- [ESDS] RE ESDS BOF approved, and comments Gregor Baues
- [ESDS] [Fwd: Re: ESDS BOF approved, and comments] Ali Rezafard
- Re: [ESDS] ESDS BOF approved, and comments Ali Rezafard
- Re: [ESDS] ESDS BOF approved, and comments Ali Rezafard