1 2/18/99quorum pi ‘99 bbn technologies quorum distributed objects integration (quoin) quorum pi...

1 2/18/99 Quorum PI ‘99 BBN Technologies

Quorum Distributed Objects Integration (QuOIN)

Quorum PI Meeting Working Group

Structure and Prepared Commentary

Rick Schantz, moderatorBBN Technologies

Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Quorum PI Meeting

Feb 17-18 1999

Atlanta, Georgia


Purpose of Working Group

• Continue agenda begun at July ‘98 PI meeting, revising roadmaps and increasing participation• Technically it is at the intersection of integrating components which will provide better managed, end-to-end QoS and adaptivity, based on a

Distributed Object Computing paradigm• Focus is visionary in the large and aggregate, but experimental and results/evaluation oriented in the short term

– Sequence of more inclusive integrated object technology capability delivered for test & evaluation

• Need to:– Review progress against previous roadmap– Revise individual area roadmap with new experience, new information, new insight and or/new direction (focusing on 6-12 months out)– Lay out specific activities, integrations, investigations or experiments to meet these targets, and identify who will participate– Begin to address cross-over issues and opportunities


Integration of Current Quorum Technology Projects

• Quality Objects (Quo) as a common framework for object level QoS integration

• Bandwidth Management: DIRM (BBN, Columbia, Smarts), REMOS (CMU)

• Dependability: AQuA (Illinois, BBN, Cornell), Totem/Realize (UCSB)

• Real Time Behavior: TAO (WUStL), Adaptive Resource Mgmt (UCI)

• Security: Sigma (TIS)

• Application Interface & Software Engineering: Flick (Utah)


Proposed Agenda

• 8:00-8:15 Background and Agenda Review Rick Schantz• 8:15-8:30 QUITE Architecture Integration Dave Lounsbury• 8:30-9:30 Subgroup Overviews

– Real time behavior Doug Schmidt– Dependability Dave Bakken– Bandwidth management John Zinky– Security Franklin Webber– Software engineering tools Joe Loyall

• 9:30-10:00 & 10:30-11 Subgroup Roadmap update and brainstorm• 11-11:30 Produce Subworking group output• 11:30-12 Open Discussions:

– Cross Property Integration & NT All• 3:30 Report Back to Plenary


Organization & Issues• The QuOIN process

– potential short term demonstrated capability (3-6 months)

– longer term capability/new ideas directions (6-24 months)

– test and evaluation delivery oriented

– identification of missing pieces

• Review Progress on Roadmap from 7/98

• Subgroup Brainstorm– Fundamental concepts/Building blocks/mechanisms/experiments toward the subarea

– Implementation availability, which parts? How does it fit in?

– Modes of Adaptability

– Interrelationships

– Issues in common context


QuOIN Roadmap July ‘98 (Overview)

September ’98, March ’99, September ’99 &March ’00 are semi-formal test & evaluationrelease objectives;December ’98, June ’99, December ’99 areinterim demonstration objectives for the nextrelease

Year 1: focus on NT inclusionYear 2: focus on DCOM inclusion


Roadmap July ‘98 (continued)

• September ‘98: Initial QuO Toolkit release (1.0) with very limited,unintegrated property examples (AQuA, DIRM)

• December ‘98: Individual mechanism integration objectivesdemonstration for rate monotonic real time support (TAO),bandwidth mgmt (REMOS comm status info, instrumentation),language aspects of access control security (SIGMA), softwareengineering tools (use of FLICK in QuO code generator; FLICKgeneration of C++ stubs)

• March ‘99: Release (2.0) of QuO Integrated package with additionalproperty examples

• June ‘99: Individual mechanism integration part 2: gateway aspectsof security (SIGMA), real time part2 (TAO+ TMO), dependability(AQuA + REALIZE), software engineering: passing QoSinformation via FLICK generated code.; use of NT based RSVP(QoS)communications control for bandwidth management;unintegrated QuO property managers

• September ‘99: Next release (3.0)

• December ’99: Focus on aggregate behavior and integrated propertymanagers; initial QuO over a DCOM base;

• March ’00: Next release (4.0)…

May ‘99


September ‘98 Release

September 1998 Distributed Objects Release (PreliminaryInformation)

Corba 2.1, IIOP 1.0Orb: Visigenic 3.2IDL compiler: Orb specific (Visibroker IDL compiler)Languages: Java 1.1.5; C++ Gnu & SUNOS: Linux 5.1 Red Hat; Solaris 2.5QuO Base: QuO runtime contract management, Code generators for CDL &SDL; sample system condition library; example contracts;Mechanisms: RSVP gateway; Ensemble gateway; Proteus dependabilitymanager; (examples, as is)Demo Apps: Betty (Java); Simple (C++); OpenMap (mixed C++ & Java)Packaging and documentationDesign, interfacing spec, and use examples


Projected Spring ‘99 Release based on July ‘98 WG

March 1999 (Preliminary Information)

Corba 2.3 including IIOP 1.2; smart proxy; interceptors; POA; Trader &Name ServerOrb: Visigenic, TAOIDL compiler: FLICK as common tool (generating stubs and runtime forTAO&Visibroker, delegates for QuO runtime, and instrumentationLanguages: Java (Visigenic), C++ (Visigenic, TAO)OS: Solaris, Linux, NTQuO Base: version 2 of above plus QuO Gateway shell, multiple contractsupport, extended QDL, use of FLICK as common IDL/QDL code generatorMechanisms: extended Bandwidth management (RSVP, REMOS datacollection), Real time support (TAO), interenclave access control (SIGMA;language part only)Demo appsPackaging and documentationDesign, interfacing spec and use examples


July ‘98 Report: Subgroup Real Time DOC Behavior

• Goals/Metrics– hard upper bounds on timing

– ratio of upper bound to mean

– high performance (faster for finer granularity “fast enough”)

• Short term activities– Instrumentation of RT ORB behavior

– Integration of TAO into QuO framework-- assess RT behavior for periodic tasks

• Midterm activities– Evaluate compatability of TMO with TAO; attempt integration &

assessment

• Longer term activities– Loosen periodic nature of tasks

– Improve on metrics


July ‘98 Report: Subgroup DOC Dependability

• Goals/Metrics– Bounded recovery time

– State transfer performance

– % performance hit of nondeterminism and concurrency

• Short term activities– assess inventory: Realize, Roafts, AQuA to plan baseline capability

– wider spectrum of replication techniques & adaptation

• Technical Issues– Group communication performance over WANs

– Incremental state transfer

– handle non-determinism/concurrency

• Identification of Missing pieces– externalization service from ORBs

– Common group communications API


July ‘98 Report: Subgroup Bandwidth Management

• Goals/Metrics– Betty per second response

Control <--> fairness

Jitter; variance

• Short term activities– Choose better server with variable bottlenecks using QuO/Remos

– Quosme integrated with Quo gateway to control bandwidth

• Longer term activities– Darwin gateway

– Netex gateway


July ‘98 Report: Subgroup Security Aspects

• Goals/Metrics– Assurance NRL claims Tree

– Develop a Quality of Protection measure

• Short term activities– QDL and DTEL++ integration into suite of “aspect languages”

– Sigma interenclave access control ORB gateway integrated with QuO gateway

• Longer term activities– SVE- dynamic, adaptable policy insertion

– QoS + security- Application level

• Technical Issues– Interoperability of security mechanisms

– MLS ORB/Assurance; MLS workflow weaving

– Architectural issue of Mandatory Security Features


July ‘98 Report: Software engineering/common tools subworking group collaboration activities

• DTEL++ in QDL• QuO/Flick integration• Examine Popart's suitability for use with Flick• ASSERT/QuO integration

• Quasar's multimedia domain within QuO

• QDL modeling of TMO's realtime QoS needs• Realize using QDL• Test recursion/layering of QuO applications (needed for Quasar’s multifeedback domain)• Definition of high-level architecture of QoS in applications

DOI and QuO toolkit effortsBBN, TIS, and Utah

University of Utah

University of Oregon


NT Issues

• What’s so special about NT?• Anticipated pitfalls?• hybrid environments?


Real Time Properties Subworking Group

Group Leader: Doug Schmidt


Managed Bandwidth Resources Subworking Group

Group Leader: John Zinky


QuO Based Bandwidth Management Measures and Controls Network Resources

ORB Proxy

Commercial ORB

contract

MeasuredPerformance

Skeleton

Contract

BandwidthControl

BandwidthControl

UserExpectation

Commercial ORB

Logical Method Call

ExpectedPerformance

RightsPolicies

MeasuredPerformance

ApplicationManager

StatusCollection

NetworkManagement

RightsPolicies

Server Host

Skeleton

Client Object

Delegate Delegate

Sensors

QuO Gateway

SNMP SNMPcustom

Corba CORBA

ORB Proxy

CORBACORBA

With Trace RecordWith Trace Record

FunctionalFunctional

SignalSignal

Client Host Network

IIO

PG

lue

IIO

PG

lue

IIOPResource

AwareTransport

ResourceAware

Transport

IIOP

RSVP bandwidth reservation

Darwin bandwidth reservation HostStatusSensor

HostStatusSensor

Functional

Sensors

Functional


Dependability Properties Subworking Group

Group Leader: Dave Bakken


Agenda

• Review progress of last 6 months, and compare to old roadmap• Review middleware standards developments, and assess impact• Revise taxonomy for roadmap for future• Populate roadmap taxonomy with anticipated results


Subgroup DOC Dependability(Output slide from 7/98 Dependability Breakout Group)

• Goals/Metrics– Bounded recovery time

– State transfer performance

– % performance hit of nondeterminism and concurrency

• Short term activities– assess inventory: Realize, Roafts, AQuA to plan baseline capability

– wider spectrum of replication techniques & adaptation

• Technical Issues– Group communication performance over WANs

– Incremental state transfer

– handle non-determinism/concurrency

• Identification of Missing pieces– externalization service from ORBs

– Common group communications API


Review middleware standards developments,and assess impact

• Ongoing Standardization Efforts:– Corba Fault Tolerance– Externalization– Pluggable Transport (RIP?)– Portable Interceptors– (Any others??)–

• Which will likely enable DoD to better buy off-the-shelf dependability support in a few years’ time?

• What are the holes which DARPA should direct more research effort to help?


Populate roadmap taxonomy with anticipated results (Output #3 from this breakout group)

• Short-term anticipated results (1-6 months)– – – – –

• Medium term (6-18 months) goals and suggestions– – –

• Long-term goals and suggestions– – –


Security Properties Subworking Group

Group Leader: Franklin Webber


Security Working Group Agenda

• theme: security in an adaptive environment• agenda

– offer status report on QuO/OO-DTE integration– discuss security issues for adaptable distributed object systems– write summary of discussion


Security Issues for Adaptable Distributed Object Systems

• compatibility of security with adaptation– can security interfere with QuO mechanisms?– can QuO be used to circumvent security policy?

• adaptability of policy and mechanisms– when and how to change security policy?

strengthening

weakening

– metrics


Security Issues, cont’d

• implementation issues– should QuO specification and security policy languages be unified?– where should access control decisions be made?

• assurance issues– adaptation must preserve security invariants– what experiments test adaptive security?


Compatibility of Security with Adaptation

• synchronization of distributed changes• covert channels

– storage– timing


Adaptability of Security Policy and Mechanisms

• in reponse to attack:– strengthening of policy to help intrusion detection– weakening of policy to help availability


Implementation Issues

• “firewall” vs. “interceptor” approach– assurance vs. flexibility– standard approach to adaptation for multiple properties– interoperability

• CORBA, CORBAsec standardization• DCOM


Assurance Issues

• authorization for policy changes• synchronization of policy changes• formalism for both security and adaptability• automating analysis• testing and experiments

– threats and countermeasures– assumptions about environment


Common Quorum Languages and ToolsSubworking Group

Group Leader: Joe Loyall


QoS Description Languages• QDL, QuO's description language (BBN)• DTEL++, access control security language (TIS)• Quasar's multimedia fidelity description language (OGI)• Acme (CMU) - software architecture description language• DeSiDeRaTa (UT - Arlington) - path based timeliness and dependability• XML• Object Query Language


QoS Software Engineering Tools

• Flick, a flexible IDL compiler kit (Utah)• QuO toolkit (BBN)• TAO (WUStL) • OO DTE tools (TIS)• NRL SCR, ASSERT (NRL, UOregon)• Popart (USC ISI)• TMO toolkit (UC, Irvine and SoHar)• Microfeedback toolkit (OGI)• Rational Rose (Rational)


Action items/Collaborations

• QuO/Flick integration• DTEL++ in QDL• Quasar's multimedia domain within QuO• Examine Popart's suitability for use with Flick• ASSERT/QuO integration• QDL modeling of TMO's realtime QoS needs• Realize using QDL• Test recursion/layering of QuO applications (needed for Quasar’s multifeedback domain)• Definition of high-level architecture of QoS in applications

1 2/18/99quorum pi ‘99 bbn technologies quorum distributed objects integration (quoin) quorum pi...

Documents