Using Composition Policies to Manage Authentication and Authorization Patterns and Services

This paper presents a policy-driven approach to service engineering, addressing the gap between static structure specification and dynamic behavioral specification. By this we mean providing a more complete means of documenting the composition of separately specified behaviors. We introduce the concept of a policy enforcement statemachine diagram to specify the linking of collaborations for which the behavior has been separately specified using semantic connectors. We also use composition patterns which define constraints/restrictions on collaborations that run in parallel in a service.

[1]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules For Advanced Database Processing , 1994 .

[2]  Gregor von Bochmann,et al.  Realizability of Collaboration-based Service Specifications , 2007, 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'07).

[3]  Rolv Bræk,et al.  A Policy-driven Approach to Dynamic Composition of Authentication and Authorization Patterns and Services , 2006, J. Comput..

[4]  Richard Torbjørn Sanders,et al.  Modeling peer-to-peer service goals in UML , 2004, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, 2004. SEFM 2004..

[5]  Siobhán Clarke,et al.  Composition patterns: an approach to designing reusable aspects , 2001, ICSE 2001.

[6]  Rolv Bræk,et al.  Dynamic Role Binding in a Service Oriented Architecture , 2005, INTELLCOMM.

[7]  Stephan Reiff-Marganiec,et al.  A Policy Architecture for Enhancing and Controlling Features , 2003, FIW.

[8]  Andreas Prinz,et al.  Application of Stuck-Free Conformance to Service-Role Composition , 2006, SAM.

[9]  Rolv Bræk,et al.  Formalizing Collaboration Goal Sequences for Service Choreography , 2006, FORTE.

[10]  Declan O'Sullivan,et al.  Policy-based management for resource-specific semantic service , 2006 .

[11]  Rolv Bræk,et al.  Towards a framework of authentication and authorization patterns for ensuring availability in service composition , 2006, First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES'06).

[12]  John Keeney,et al.  Chisel: a policy-driven, context-aware, dynamic adaptation framework , 2003, Proceedings POLICY 2003. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[13]  Frank Alexander Kraemer,et al.  Using UML 2.0 collaborations for compositional service specification , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[14]  Jacqueline Floch,et al.  A Compositional Approach to Service Validation , 2005, SDL Forum.

[15]  Peter Herrmann,et al.  Synthesizing Components with Sessions from Collaboration-Oriented Service Specifications , 2007, SDL Forum.

[16]  Richard Torbjørn Sanders,et al.  Collaborations, Semantic Interfaces and Service Goals: a way forward for Service Engineering , 2007 .

[17]  Emil C. Lupu,et al.  The Ponder Policy Specification Language , 2001, POLICY.

[18]  Peter Herrmann,et al.  Transforming Collaborative Service Specifications into Efficiently Executable State Machines , 2007, Electron. Commun. Eur. Assoc. Softw. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Emil C. Lupu,et al.  Ponder: A Language for Specifying Security and Management Policies for Distributed Systems , 2000 .

[20]  Siobhán Clarke,et al.  Composition patterns: an approach to designing reusable , 2001, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.

[21]  J.E.Y. Rosseboe,et al.  Towards a framework of authentication and authorization patterns for ensuring availability in service composition , 2006 .