





Network Working Group                                          B. Aiken
Request for Comments: 2768                                 J. Strassner
Category: Informational                                   Cisco Systems
                                                           B. Carpenter
                                                                    IBM
                                                              I. Foster
                                            Argonne National Laboratory
                                                               C. Lynch
                                    Coalition for Networked Information
                                                           J. Mambretti
                                                                  ICAIR
                                                               R. Moore
                                                                   UCSD
                                                          B. Teitelbaum
                                     Advanced Networks & Services, Inc.
                                                          February 2000


                     Network Policy and Services:
                 A Report of a Workshop on Middleware

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   An ad hoc middleware workshop was held at the International Center
   for Advanced Internet Research in December 1998.  The Workshop was
   organized and sponsored by Cisco, Northwestern University's
   International Center for Advanced Internet Research (iCAIR), IBM, and
   the National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal of the workshop was
   to identify existing middleware services that could be leveraged for
   new capabilities as well as identifying additional middleware
   services requiring research and development.  The workshop
   participants discussed the definition of middleware in general,
   examined the applications perspective, detailed underlying network
   transport capabilities relevant to middleware services, and then
   covered various specific examples of middleware components. These
   included APIs, authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA)
   issues, policy framework, directories, resource management, networked
   information discovery and retrieval services, quality of service,



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   security, and operational tools.  The need for a more organized
   framework for middleware R&D was recognized, and a list of specific
   topics needing further work was identified.

Table of Contents

   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   1.0   Contextual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.0   What is Middleware?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.0   Application Perspective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.0   Exemplary Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.0   Application Programming Interfaces and Signaling . . . . . .  8
   6.0   IETF AAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.0   Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.0   Directories  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.0   Resource Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10.0  Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval Services . . . 17
   11.0  Network QOS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   12.0  Authentication, authorization, and access management . . . . 21
   13.0  Network Management, Performance, and Operations  . . . . . . 22
   14.0  Middleware to support multicast applications . . . . . . . . 23
   15.0  Java and Jini TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   16.0  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   17.0  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   18.0  Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   19.0  URLs/references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   20.0  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   21.0  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Introduction

   This document describes the term "middleware" as well as its
   requirements and scope. Its purpose is to facilitate communication
   between developers of both collaboration based and high-performance
   distributed computing applications and developers of the network
   infrastructure. Generally, in advanced networks, middleware consists
   of services and other resources located between both the applications
   and the underlying packet forwarding and routing infrastructure,
   although no consensus currently exists on the precise lines of
   demarcation that would define those domains. This document is being
   developed within the context of existing standards efforts.
   Consequently, this document defines middleware core components within
   the framework of the current status of middleware-related standards
   activities, especially within the IETF and the Desktop Management
   Task Force (DMTF). The envisioned role of the IETF is to lead the
   work in defining the underlying protocols that could be used to
   support a middleware infrastructure. In this context, we will
   leverage the information modeling work, as well as the advanced XML



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   and CIM/DEN-LDAP mapping work, being done in the DMTF. (The recently
   constituted Grid Forum is also pursuing relevant activities.)

   This document also addresses the impact of middleware on Internet
   protocol development. As part of its approach to describing
   middleware, this document has initially focused on the intersections
   among middleware components and application areas that already have
   well defined activities underway.

   This document is a product of an ad hoc Middleware Workshop held on
   December 4-5 1998. The Workshop was organized and sponsored by Cisco,
   Northwestern University's International Center for Advanced Internet
   Research (iCAIR), IBM, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
   The goal of the workshop was to define the term middleware and its
   requirements on advanced network infrastructures as well as on
   distributed applications. These definitions will enable a set of core
   middleware components to subsequently be specified, both for
   supporting advanced application environments as well as for providing
   a basis for other middleware services.

   Although this document is focused on a greater set of issues than
   just Internet protocols, the concepts and issues put forth here are
   extremely relevant to the way networks and protocols need to evolve
   as we move into the implementation stage of "the network is the
   computer". Therefore, this document is offered to the IETF, DMTF,
   Internet2, Next Generation Internet (NGI), NSF Partnerships for
   Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI), the interagency
   Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT2) program, the Grid
   Forum, the Worldwide Web Consortium, and other communities for their
   consideration.

   This document is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a
   contextual framework. Section 2 defines middleware. Section 3
   discusses application requirements. Subsequent sections discuss
   requirements and capabilities for middleware as defined by
   applications and middleware practitioners. These sections will also
   discuss the required underlying transport infrastructure,
   administrative policy and  management, exemplary core middleware
   components, provisioning issues, network environment and
   implementation issues, and research areas.

1.0 Contextual Framework

   Middleware can be defined to encompass a large set of services. For
   example, we chose to focus initially on the services needed to
   support a common set of applications based on a distributed network
   environment.  A consensus of the Workshop was that there was really
   no core set of middleware services in the sense that all applications



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   required them.  This consensus does not diminish the importance of
   application domain-specific middleware, or the flexibility needed in
   determining customized approaches. Many communities  (e.g.,
   Internet2, NGI, and other advanced Internet constituencies) may
   decide on their own set of common middleware services and tools;
   however, they should strive for interoperability whenever possible.
   The topics in this workshop were chosen to encourage discussion about
   the nature and scope of middleware per se as distinct from specific
   types of applications; therefore, many relevant middleware topics
   were not discussed.

   Another consensus of the Workshop that helped provide focus was that,
   although middleware could be conceptualized as hierarchical, or
   layered, such an approach was not helpful, and indeed had been
   problematic and unproductive in earlier efforts.

   The better approach would be to consider middleware as an
   unstructured, often orthogonal, collection of components (such as
   resources and services) that could be utilized either individually or
   in various subsets.  This working assumption avoided extensive
   theological modeling discussions, and enables work to proceed on
   various middleware issues independently.

   An important goal of the Workshop was to identify any middleware or
   network-related research or development that would be required to
   advance the state of the art to support advanced application
   environments, such as those being developed and pursued by NGI and
   Internet2.  Consequently, discussion focused on those areas that had
   the maximum opportunity for such advances.

2.0  What is Middleware?

   The Workshop participants agreed on the existence of middleware, but
   quickly made it clear that the definition of middleware was dependent
   on the subjective perspective of those trying to define it. Perhaps
   it was even dependent on when the question was asked, since the
   middleware of yesterday (e.g., Domain Name Service, Public Key
   Infrastructure, and Event Services) may become the fundamental
   network infrastructure of tomorrow.  Application environment users
   and programmers see everything below the API as middleware.
   Networking gurus see anything above IP as middleware. Those working
   on applications, tools, and mechanisms between these two extremes see
   it as somewhere between TCP and the API, with some even further
   classifying middleware into application-specific upper middleware,
   generic middle middleware, and resource-specific lower middleware.
   The point was made repeatedly that middleware often extends beyond
   the "network" into the compute, storage, and other resources that the
   network connects.  For example, a video serving application will want



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   to access resource discovery and allocation services not just for
   networks but also for the archives and computers required to serve
   and process the video stream.  Through the application of general set
   theory and rough consensus, we roughly characterize middleware as
   those services found above the transport (i.e., over TCP/IP) layer
   set of services but below the application environment (i.e., below
   application-level APIs).

   Some of the earliest conceptualizations of middleware originated with
   the distributed operating research of the late 1970s and early 1980s,
   and was further advanced by the I-WAY project at SC'95.  The I-WAY
   linked high performance computers nation-wide over high performance
   networks such that the resulting environment functioned as a single
   high performance environment. As a consequence of that experiment,
   the researchers involved re-emphasized the fact that effective high
   performance distributed computing required distributed common
   computing and networking resources, including libraries and utilities
   for resource discovery, scheduling and monitoring, process creation,
   communication and data transport.

   Subsequent research and development through the Globus project of
   such middleware resources demonstrated that their capabilities for
   optimizing advanced application performance in distributed domains.

   In May 1997, a Next Generation Internet (NGI) workshop on NGI
   research areas resulted in a publication, "Research Challenges for
   the Next Generation Internet", which yields the following description
   of middleware. "Middleware can be viewed as a reusable, expandable
   set of services and functions that are commonly needed by many
   applications to function well in a networked environment". This
   definition could further be refined to include persistent services,
   such as those found within an operating system, distributed operating
   environments (e.g., JAVA/JINI), the network infrastructure (e.g.,
   DNS), and transient capabilities (e.g., run time support and
   libraries) required to support client software on systems and hosts.

   In summary, there are many views of what is middleware. The consensus
   of many at the workshop was that given the dynamic morphing nature of
   middleware, it was more important to identify some core middleware
   services and start working on them than it was to come to a consensus
   on a dictionary-like definition of the term.

   Systems involving strong middleware components to support networked
   information discovery have also been active research areas since at
   least the late 1980s. For example, consider Archie or the Harvest
   project, to cite two examples. One could easily argue that the site
   logs used by Archie or the broker system and harvest agents were an
   important middleware tool, and additional work in this area is



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   urgently needed in order to improve the efficiency and scope of web-
   based indexing services.

   "As long ago" as 1994, the Internet Architecture Board held a
   workshop on "Information Infrastructure for the Internet" reported in
   RFC 1862, which in many ways covered similar issues. Although its
   recommendations were summarized as follows:

   -  increased focus on a general caching and replication architecture
   -  a rapid deployment of name resolution services, and
   -  the articulation of a common security architecture for information
      applications."

   it is clear that this work is far from done.

   Finally, this workshop noted that there is a close linkage between
   middleware as a set of standards and protocols and the infrastructure
   needed to make the middleware meaningful. For example, the DNS
   protocol would be of limited significance without the system of DNS
   servers, and indeed the administrative infrastructure of name
   registry; NTP, in order to be useful, requires the existence of time
   servers; newer middleware services such as naming, public key
   registries and certificate authorities, will require even more
   extensive server and administrative infrastructure in order to become
   both useful and usable services.

3.0 Application Perspective

   From an applications perspective, the network is just another type of
   resource that it needs to use and manage.  The set of middleware
   services and requirements necessary to support advanced applications
   are defined by a vision that includes and combines applications in
   areas such as: distributed computing, distributed data bases,
   advanced video services, teleimmersion (i.e., a capability for
   providing a compelling real-life experience in a virtual environment
   based for example on CAVE technologies), extensions with haptics,
   electronic commerce, distance education, interactive collaborative
   research, high-rate instrumentation (60 MByte/s and above sustained),
   including use of online scientific facilities (e.g. microscopes,
   telescopes, etc.), effectively managing large amounts of data,
   computation and information Grids, adaptable and morphing network
   infrastructure, proxies and agents, and electronic persistent
   presence (EPP). Many of these applications are "bleeding edge" with
   respect to currently deployed applications on the commodity Internet
   and hence have unique requirements. Just as the Web was an advanced
   application in the early 1990s, many of the application areas defined
   above will not become commonplace in the immediate future.  However,
   they all possess the capability to change the way the network is used



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   as well as our definition of infrastructure, much as the Web and
   Mosaic changed it in the early 90s. A notable recent trend in
   networks is the increasing amount of HTTP, voice, and video traffic,
   and it was noted that voice and video particularly need some form of
   QoS and associated middleware to manage it.

   A quick review of the requirements for teleimmersion highlight the
   requirement for multiple concurrent logical network channels, each
   with its own latency, jitter, burst, and bandwidth QoS; yet all being
   coordinated through a single middleware interface to the application.
   For security and efficiency those using online instruments require
   the ability to steer the devices and change parameters as a direct
   result of real-time analysis performed on the data as it is received
   from the instruments. Therefore, network requirements encompass high
   bandwidth, low latency, and security, which must all be coordinated
   through middleware.  Large databases, archives, and digital libraries
   are becoming a mainstay for researchers and industry. The
   requirements they will place on the network and on middleware will be
   extensive, including support of authentication, authorization, access
   management, quality of service, networked information discovery and
   retrieval tools, naming and service location, to name only a few.
   They also require middleware to support collection building and
   self-describing data.  Distributed computing environments (e.g.,
   Globus, Condor, Legion, etc.) are quickly evolving into the computing
   and information Grids of the future. These Grids not only require
   adaptive and manageable network services but also require a
   sophisticated set of secure middleware capabilities to provide easy-
   to-use APIs to the application.

   Many application practitioners were adamant that they also required
   the capability for "pass through" services.  This refers to the
   ability to bypass the middleware and directly access the underlying
   infrastructure such as the operating system or network), even though
   they were eager to make use of middleware services and see more of it
   developed to support their own applications.  In addition,
   authentication and access control, as well as security, are required
   for all of the applications mentioned above, albeit at different
   levels.

4.0 Exemplary Components

   In an attempt to describe middleware and discuss pertinent issues
   relating to its development and deployment, an exemplary set of
   services were selected for discussion. These services were chosen to
   stimulate discussion and not as an attempt to define an exclusive set
   of middleware services. Also, it is the intent of this effort not to
   duplicate existing IETF efforts or those of other standards bodies
   (e.g., the DMTF), but rather to leverage those efforts, and indeed to



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   highlight areas where work was already advanced to a stage that might
   be approaching deployment.

5.0  Application Programming Interfaces and Signaling

   Applications require the ability to explicitly request resources
   based on their immediate usage needs. These requests have associated
   network management controls and network resource implications;
   however, fulfillment of these requests may require multiple
   intermediate steps. Given the preliminary state of middleware
   definition, there currently is no common framework, much less a
   method, for an application to signal its need for a set of desired
   network services, including quality and priority of service as well
   as attendant resource requirements. However, given the utility of
   middleware, especially with regard to optimization for advanced
   applications, preliminary models for both quality and priority of
   service and resource management exist and continue to evolve.
   however, without an agreed-to framework for standards in this area,
   there is the risk of multiple competing standards that may further
   delay the deployment of a middleware-rich infrastructure. This
   framework should probably include signaling methods, access/admission
   controls, and a series of defined services and resources. In
   addition, it should include service levels, priority considerations,
   scheduling, a Service-Level-Agreement (SLA) function, and a feedback
   mechanism for notifying applications or systems when performance is
   below the SLA specification or when an application violates the SLA.
   Any such mechanism implies capabilities for: 1) an interaction with
   some type of policy implementation and enforcement, 2) dynamic
   assessment of available network resources, 3) policy monitoring, 4)
   service guarantees, 5) conflict resolution, and 6) restitution for
   lack of performance.

   Application programmers are concerned with minimizing the interfaces
   that they must learn to access middleware services.  Thus the
   unification of common services behind a single API is of great
   interest to middleware users.  Examples of common APIs that may be
   achievable are:

   * Environmental discovery interface, whether for discovering hardware
     resources, network status and capabilities, data sets,
     applications, remote services, or user information.
   * Remote execution interface, whether for distributed metacomputing
     applications, or for access to a digital library presentation
     service, or a Java analysis service.
   * Data management interface, whether for manipulating data within
     distributed caches, or replication of data between file systems, or
     archival storage of data.




Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   * Process management interface, whether for composing data movement
     with remote execution, or for linking together multiple processing
     steps.

6.0  IETF AAA

   The IETF AAA (authentication, authorization, and accounting) effort
   is but one of many IETF security initiatives. It depends heavily on a
   Public key infrastructure, which is intended to provide a framework
   which will support a range of trust/hierarchy environments and a
   range of usage environments (RFC1422 is an example of one such
   model).

   The IETF AAA working group has recently been formed. IETF AAA working
   group efforts are focused on many issues pertaining to middleware,
   including defining processes for access/admission control and
   identification (process for determining a unique entity),
   authentication (process for validating that identity), authorization
   (process for determining an eligibility for resource
   requests/utilization) and accounting (at least to the degree that
   resource utilization is recorded). To some degree, AAA provides for
   addressing certain levels of security, but only at a preliminary
   level. Currently, AAA protocols exist, although not as an integrated
   model or standard. One consideration for AAA is to provide for
   various levels of granularity. Even if we don't yet have an
   integrated model, it is currently possible to provide for basic AAA
   mechanisms that can be used as a basis to support SLAs.  Any type of
   AAA implementation requires a policy management framework, to which
   it must be linked. Currently, a well-formulated linking mechanism has
   not been defined.

   Middleware AAA requirements are also driven by the distributed
   interoperation that can occur between middleware services.  The
   distribution of application support across multiple autonomous
   systems will require self-consistent third-party mechanisms for
   authentication as well as data movement.  Conceptually, an
   application may need access to data that is under control of a remote
   collection, to support the execution of a procedure at a third site.

   The data flow needs to be directly from the collection to the
   execution platform for efficiency.  At the same time, the procedure
   will need access permission to the data set while it is acting on
   behalf of the requestor.  How the authentication is done between the
   remote procedure and the remote data collection entities raises
   significant issues related to transitivity of trust, and will require
   establishment of a trust policy for third-party mechanisms. This is
   exacerbated when a collection of entities, such as is required for
   visualization applications, is involved.



Aiken, et al.                Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


7.0 Policy

   The IETF Policy Framework working group is addressing a policy
   framework definition language, a policy architecture model, policy
   terminology and, specifically, a policy model that can be used for
   signaled as well as provisioned QoS. The policy meta-model links
   high-level business requirements, such as those that can be specified
   in an SLA, to low-level device implementation mechanisms, ranging
   from specific access control and management of services, objects and
   other resources to configuration of mechanisms necessary to provide a
   given service.

   Polices are an integral component of all middleware services, and
   will be found within most middleware services in one form or another.
   Policies are often represented as an "if condition then action"
   tuple. Policies can be both complex and numerous; therefore, policy
   management services must be able to identify and resolve policy
   conflicts.  They also need to support both static (i.e. loaded at
   boot time via a configuration file) and dynamic (i.e. the
   configuration of a policy enforcing device may change based on an
   event) modes.

   A generalized policy management architecture (as suggested by the
   IETF policy architecture draft) includes a policy management service,
   a dedicated policy repository, at least one policy decision point
   (PDP), and at least one policy enforcement point (PEP). The policy
   management service supports the specification, editing, and
   administration of policy, through a graphical user interface as well
   as programmatically. The policy repository provides storage and
   retrieval of policies as well as policy components. These policy
   components contain definitional information, and may be used to build
   more complex policies, or may be used as part of the policy decision
   and/or enforcement process. The PDP (e.g. resource manager, such as a
   bandwidth broker or an intra-domain policy server) is responsible for
   handling events and making decisions based on those events (e.g., at
   time x do y) and updating the PEP configuration appropriately. In
   addition, it may be responsible for providing the initial
   configuration of the PEP. The PEP (e.g., router, firewall or host)
   enforces policy based on the "if condition then action" rule sets it
   has received from the PDP.

   Policy information may be communicated from the PDP to the PEP
   through a variety of protocols, such as COPS or DIAMETER. A proxy may
   be used to translate information contained in these protocols to
   forms that devices can consume (e.g., command line interface commands
   or SNMP sets). Additional information, contained in Policy
   Information Bases (PIBs), may also be used to translate from an
   intermediate specification to specific functions and capabilities of



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   a device. For example, a policy may specify "if source IP address is
   198.10.20.132, then remark traffic with a DSCP of 5". The PIB would
   be used to translate the device-specific meaning of the conditioning
   specified by the DiffServ code point of 5 (e.g., a specific set of
   queue and threshold settings).

   Policy requires AAA functions, not only for access control, but also
   to establish the trust relationships that will enable distributed
   policy interactions.  PDPs may require the requesting end systems and
   applications to be authenticated before the PDP will honor any
   requests. The PDP and PEP must be authenticated to each other to
   reduce the probability of spoofing. This will be true whichever
   protocol is utilized for supporting communications between these
   entities. Audit trails are essential for all of these transactions.
   In addition, trust management policies will need to be developed as
   well as the supporting middleware mechanisms to enable inter-domain
   policy negotiation.

   Ultimately, many policy processes link entities to resources, And
   therefore require interactions with entity identification mechanisms,
   resource identification mechanisms, and allocation mechanisms. The
   distributed computing community has already started efforts
   developing policy definition languages and systems.  Globus uses its
   Resource Services Language (RSL) to define the resources and policies
   associated with them. Condor uses a matchmaking bidding technique to
   match those providing and those acquiring services. Similarly, the
   IETF has several policy definition languages in varying stages of
   development, including RPSL, RPCL, SPSL, PFDL, PAX, and Keynote.
   Ultimately, these efforts should be merged into a single
   specification (or at least a smaller group of specifications) to
   enable distributed computing applications to be able to effectively
   communicate and utilize network resources and services.

   Directories play a crucial role in policy systems. Directories are
   ideally suited for storing and retrieving policy information, due to
   their exceptionally high read rates, ability to intelligently
   replicate all or part of their information, per-attribute access
   control, and use of containment.  To this end, the IETF Policy
   Framework working group (in conjunction with the DMTF) is developing
   a core information model and LDAP schema that can be used to
   represent policy information that applications can use. This core
   model is used to provide common representation and structure of
   policy information. Applications can then subclass all or part of the
   classes in this core schema to meet their own specific needs, while
   retaining the ability to communicate and interoperate with each
   other.





Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


8.0 Directories

   Directories are critical resource components that provide support to
   many other elements in the middleware environment, especially policy.
   As network-based environment evolves, it will no longer be viable to
   encode policy information directly into each individual application.
   The prevailing model in use today is for each application to store
   its view of a device's data (e.g., configuration) in its own private
   data store.These data include relevant information concerning network
   resources and services as well as clients wanting to use those
   resources (e.g., people, processes, and applications). The same
   resource (or aspects of that resource, such as its physical vs.
   logical characteristics) may be represented in several data stores.
   Even if the device is modeled the same way in each data store, each
   application only has access to its own data. This leads to
   duplication of data and data synchronization problems.

   The promise of technologies like CIM and DEN is to enable each
   application to store data describing the resources that they manage
   in a single directory using a common format and access protocol. This
   results in the data describing the resource being represented only
   once. Defining a logically centralized common repository, where
   resources and services are represented in a common way, enables
   applications of different types to utilize and share information
   about resources and services that they use.

   Not only does this solve the data duplication and synchronization
   problems, it also provides inherent extensibility in describing the
   characteristics of an object - a single entity can be represented by
   multiple directory objects, each representing a different aspect of
   the entity. Different applications can be responsible for managing
   the different objects that together make up a higher-level object,
   even if the applications themselves can not communicate with each
   other. This enables these applications to effectively share and reuse
   data.  This provides significant benefits for users and applications.
   In the short term, users and applications will benefit from having
   all of the data in one place. In the long term, users and
   applications will be able to take advantage of data managed by other
   applications.

   Directories are key to supporting advanced network-based application
   environments. Directory purists say that the directory is not
   middleware; rather, it is a dumb storage device that is made into an
   intelligent repository by encapsulating it within middleware.
   Although a directory associates attributes with objects, what makes
   it different from a database are four key things:





Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   -  directory objects are essentially independent of each other,
      whereas database objects are related to each other (sometimes in
      very complex ways)
   -  directories organize their information using the notion of
      containment, which is not naturally implemented in databases
   -  directory objects can have specific access controls assigned to an
      object and even attributes of an object
   -  directories, unlike databases, are optimized to perform a high
      number of reads vs. writes.

   Directories use a common core schema, supporting a common set of
   syntaxes and matching rules, that defines the characteristics of
   their data. This enables a common access protocol to be used to store
   and retrieve data.

   Containment can be used for many purposes, including associating
   roles with objects. This is critical in order to support a real world
   environment, where people and elements may assume different roles
   based on time or other context.Containment may also be used to
   provide different naming scopes for a given set of data.

   Directories use attribute inheritance - subclasses inherit the
   attributes of their superclasses. This enables one to define
   generalized access control at a container (e.g., a group) and then
   refine the access control on an individual basis for objects that are
   inside that container (e.g., different objects have different access
   privileges).

   Currently, directories are used mostly to represent people, servers,
   printers, and other similar objects. CIM, DEN, and other similar
   efforts have encouraged directories to be used to contain common
   objects in a managed environment. For networked applications, this
   enables clients of the network (e.g., users and applications) to be
   bound to services available in the network in a transparent manner.
   The "Grid" community is making extensive use of directory services
   for this purpose, using them to maintain information about the
   structure and state of not only networks but also computers, storage
   systems, software, and people. The DMTF is using directories to
   contain CIM and DEN information, which enables a common information
   model to be applied to objects in a managed environment. The IETF is
   using directories for many different purposes, not the least of which
   is to contain common policy information for users and applications of
   an environment, as well as services and configuration information of
   network devices.







Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   CIM and DEN are conceptual information models for describing the
   management of entities ranging from network elements to protocols to
   hosts and services. CIM and DEN are platform- and technology-
   independent. DEN is an extension of CIM that, among other things,
   describes how to map CIM data into a form usable by LDAP.

   The CIM Specification describes the meta schema, information model,
   language, naming, and mapping techniques to other management models,
   such as SNMP MIBs and DMTF MIFs.  DEN provides a good start on a
   model that addresses the management of the network and its elements;
   DEN is an extension of CIM to include the management of networks as a
   whole and not just the individual elements. DEN addresses the
   requirements for abstracting a complex entity, such as a router, into
   multiple components that can be used to manage individual aspects of
   that complex entity. The DEN information model, like CIM,
   incorporates both static and dynamic information. DEN provides a
   mapping to directories for the storage and retrieval of data. DEN
   will also rely heavily on the use of AAA services in order to
   maintain the integrity of the directory and its policies as well as
   to manage the distribution of policies among the policy repositories,
   PDPs and PEPs.  Resource managers and applications will also rely
   heavily on directories for the storage of policy and security
   information necessary for the management and allocation of resources.

   Since much of the information associated with a person, agent or
   element is stored in a directory, and access to that information will
   be controlled with appropriate security mechanisms, many voiced the
   need for a single user/process sign on.

   Future advanced applications (e.g., NGI, Internet2, PACI, Grids) may
   require a variety of PDPs to manage a variety of resource types
   (i.e., QOS, security, etc.).  In this case, a general model would
   have to be developed that defines the protocols and mechanisms used
   by cooperating resource managers (i.e., PDPs) of different domains
   and different genres of resource (i.e., network, security, storage,
   proxy agents, online facility, etc.). For policies to be implemented
   in a coherent fashion, it is necessary to have a mechanism that
   discovers and tracks resources and utilization.

   There is an architectural issue of central importance, which has most
   recently surfaced in the directory area. Many applications, and many
   middleware components, need what is essentially a highly scalable,
   distributed database service. In other words, people want to take the
   best of what directories and databases have to offer. This would
   result in a distributed, replicated database that can use containment
   to effectively organize and scope its information. It would be able
   to have exceptional read response time, and also offer transactional
   and relational integrity. It would support simple and complex



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   queries. Such a service has never been defined as a middleware
   component; the complexities involved in specifying and implementing
   such a service are certainly formidable. However, in the absence of
   such a general service, many middleware components have attempted to
   use the closest service available, which is deployed - historically
   first using DNS, and more recently, directory services.

   It will be important to clarify the limitations of the appropriate
   use of directory services, and to consider whether a more general
   data storage and retrieval service may be required, or whether
   directory services can be seamlessly integrated (from the point-of-
   view of the applications using them) with other forms of storage and
   retrieval (such as relational databases) in order to provide an
   integrated directory service with these capabilities.

9.0 Resource Management

   Policy implementation processes need to be linked to Resource
   Managers in a more sophisticated way than those that currently exist.
   Such processes must be dynamic, and able to reflect changes in their
   environment (e.g., adjust the quality of service provided to an
   application based on environmental changes, such as congestion or new
   users with higher priorities logging onto the system). We need to
   determine how different types of resource managers learn about one
   another and locate each other - as well as deal with associated
   cross-domain security issues.  Another aspect of this problem is
   developing a resource definition language that can describe the
   individual elements of the resource being utilized, whether that is a
   network, processor, agent, memory or storage. This will require
   developing an appropriate metadata representation and underlying meta
   schema that can be applied to multiple resource types.

   Some models of resource managers are currently being used to provide
   for the management of distributed computing and Grid environments
   (e.g., Condor, Globus, and Legion).  These resource managers provide
   languages, clients, and servers to support accessing various types of
   distributed computing resources (e.g. processors, memory, storage and
   network access).  There is a broad interest in the distributed and
   parallel computing communities in developing an automated access
   control architecture, using policies, to support the evolving IETF
   differentiated services architecture. However, this work has not yet
   been incorporated into any IETF working group charter. The term
   "bandwidth broker" has been used to refer to the agents that will
   implement this functionality through network resource management,
   policy control, and automated edge device configuration.  The IETF
   Policy Framework working group is currently working on a policy
   architecture framework, information model, and policy definition
   language that is targeted initially at policy management within a



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   single domain. However, this work is fundamental in defining inter-
   domain policy management issues, such as those that are required in
   implementing a network resource manager / bandwidth broker.  Many
   resource managers being deployed today rely on directory services for
   storing policy information as well as X.509 for certificate-based
   authentication and authorization to these resources. Middleware will
   be required to translate the needs of distributed and parallel
   computing applications within and across different policy domains. It
   is crucial that a standard means for representing and using resource
   management be developed.

   Advance reservation of resources, as well as dynamic requests for
   resources, is a crucial aspect of any resource management system.
   Advance reservations are more of a policy issue than a provisioning
   issue; however, the mechanisms for exchanging and propagating such
   requests between resource managers located within different
   administrative domains is a currently unsolved problem that needs to
   be addressed. In addition, it is important to address the issue of
   possible deadlock and/or the inefficient use of resources (i.e., the
   time period between a request, or set of requests, being initiated
   and honored and resources being allocated). There is also a need for
   rendezvous management in resource allocation services, where an
   application must gather resource reservations involving multiple
   sites and services.

   A mesh of cooperating resource managers, which interact with each
   other using standards based protocols (e.g. COPS), could be the model
   for a resource management infrastructure. Each of these may manage
   different sets of resources. For example, one may be a bandwidth
   broker that only manages network bandwidth, while another may be a
   general-purpose resource manager that manages security, IP address
   allocation, storage, processors, agents, and other network resources.
   There are already plans for middleware resource managers that not
   only allocate the resources but also manage the composition of a
   group of services that may include security services, billing
   services, shaping of multimedia composite images, etc.). Another form
   of resource manager may provide mapping between a set of related
   services (i.e., mapping an IP based RSVP request to an ATM SVC, as
   was demonstrated in a pilot project on the vBNS).

   Resource managers depend on the use of locator services to find other
   resource managers as well as to locate the AAA server(s) for the
   requestor and the associated directories containing applicable policy
   information. They may also need to query the network to determine if
   a policy request for bandwidth can be satisfied. It is essential that
   these (and other) different uses of resource management be integrated
   to provide an end-to-end service for applications and users alike.




Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


10.0 Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval Services

   There are a wide range of middleware services broadly related to the
   discovery and retrieval of networked information. Because such a
   broad range of applications (and not just high-performance,
   distributed, or parallel applications) requires these services, this
   area is under very active development and new requirements are
   constantly emerging.

   Perhaps the most basic service in this area is persistent naming and
   location services (and infrastructure) that can resolve names to
   locations (i.e., URLs). The IETF has done considerable work in
   defining a syntax for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), which are
   intended to be persistent name spaces administered by a wide range of
   agencies. URIs are resolved to URLs using resolver services; there
   are a number of different proposals for such resolver services, and
   some implementations exist such as the CNRI Handler Service.  Many
   organizations are beginning to establish and manage URI namespaces,
   notably the publishing community with their Digital Object Identifier
   (DOI). however, there are many unresolved questions, such as how to
   most effectively deal with the situation where the resource named by
   a URI exists in multiple places on the network (e.g., find the
   "closest" mirror in terms of network connectivity and resource
   availability). There is a need for an extensive set of infrastructure
   around resolvers, including how resources are registered and
   identifiers are assigned, the ongoing management of data about the
   current location of resources that are identified by a specific URI,
   and the operation of sets of resolvers for various name spaces.
   Finally, given a URI, one needs to locate the resolver services that
   are connected with that namespace; the IETF has done initial work on
   resolution service location for URI namespaces.

   URIs are intended to be processed primarily by machines; they are not
   intended to necessarily be easy to remember, though they are intended
   to be robust under transcription (not sensitive to whitespace, for
   example). More recently, the IETF has begun work on defining
   requirements for human friendly identifier systems that might be used
   to register and resolve mnemonic names.

   Another set of issues revolves around various types of metadata -
   descriptive, ratings, provenance, rights management, and the like,
   that may be associated with objects on the network. The Resource
   Description Framework (RDF) from the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C)
   provides a syntax for attaching such descriptions to network objects
   and for encoding  the descriptions; additional middleware work is
   needed to locate metadata associated with objects that may be stored
   in repositories, and to retrieve such  metadata. Validation of
   metadata is a key issue, and both IETF and W3C are working on XML



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   canonicalization algorithms that can be used in conjunction with
   public key infrastructure to sign metadata assertions. However, such
   an approach implies a complex set of trust relationships and
   hierarchies that will need to be managed, and policies that will need
   to be specified for the use of these trust relationships in
   retrieval.

   There is specific work going on in defining various types of metadata
   for applications such as rights management; ultimately this will
   imply the development of middleware services. It will also impact the
   use of directory, database, and similar services in the storage,
   access, and retrieval of this information. Similarly, there will be a
   need for services to connect descriptive metadata and identifiers
   (URNs).

   (See also the NSF/ERCIM report on metadata research issues at
   http://www.ercim.org/publication/ws-proceedings/EU-NSF/metadata.html
   http://www.ercim.org/publication/ws-proceedings/EU-NSF/metadata.ps
   http://www.ercim.org/publication/ws-proceedings/EU-NSF/metadata.pdf

   Finally, there is a need for a set of middleware services which build
   upon the research work already integrated into services such as
   Archie and Harvest. These services permit the efficient extraction of
   metadata about the contents of network information objects and
   services without necessarily retrieving and inspecting those
   services.  This includes the ability to dispatch "indexing agents" or
   "knowbots" that can run at a site to compute such indexing, under
   appropriate security and authentication constraints.  In addition, a
   set of "push-based" broker services which aggregate, filter and
   collect metadata from multiple sites and provide them to interested
   applications are also required.  Such services can provide a massive
   performance, quality, comprehensiveness and timeliness improvement
   for today's webcrawler-based indexing services.

11.0  Network QoS

   As noted earlier, applications may need to explicitly request
   resources available in the network to meet their requirements for
   certain types of communication, or in order to provide service with
   an appropriate guarantee of one or metrics, such as bandwidth,
   jitter, latency, and loss. One type of request that has been the
   focus of much effort recently is for services beyond best effort,
   particularly with respect to services running over IP. This is
   particularly important for the advanced applications noted previously
   (e.g., visualization and teleimmersion) as well as the emerging
   importance of voice and video, especially voice and video operating
   with lower bandwidth or voice and video co-mingled with data. One
   perspective on this issue is to consider the effect of multiple drops



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   in a single RTT, which is catastrophic for TCP applications but may
   be of no special significance for real-time traffic. Providing for
   improved services can be accomplished through a variety of quality of
   service (QoS) and class of service (CoS) mechanisms.  The first IETF
   model was the Integrated Services (IntServ) model, which used RSVP as
   the signaling mechanism. Since this model requires state in every
   router for every session and to manage the traffic flows, it is
   generally recognized to have scaling limits.  However, it is very
   appropriate for certain situations.

   Differentiated Services, or DiffServ, grew out of a reaction against
   the perceived scalability problems with the IETF IntServ model.
   DiffServ is an architecture for implementing scalable service
   differentiation in the Internet. Scalability is achieved by
   aggregating traffic through the use of IP-layer packet marking.
   Packets are classified and marked to receive a particular per-hop
   forwarding behavior on nodes along their path.  Sophisticated
   classification, marking, policing, and shaping operations need only
   be implemented at network boundaries or hosts.  Network resources are
   allocated to traffic streams by service provisioning policies which
   govern how traffic is marked and conditioned upon entry to a
   differentiated services-capable network, and how that traffic is
   forwarded within that network. These simple PHBs are combined with a
   much larger number of policing policies enforced at the network edge
   to provide a broad and flexible range of services, without requiring
   state or complex forwarding decisions to be performed in the core and
   distribution layers.

   Recently, the idea of "tunneling" RSVP over a DiffServ-capable
   network has generated significant interest. This attempts to combine
   the best features of both IntServ and DiffServ while mitigating the
   disadvantages of each. This in turn has led the IETF to study ways to
   ensure that Differv and Inteserv can not only coexist, but are also
   interoperable.

   The practical realization of either or both architectures depends on
   many middleware components, some of which are described in this
   document. The workshop discussion mainly focused on DiffServ
   mechanisms and on what effect such mechanisms would have on
   middleware and its ability to monitor and manage the network
   infrastructure for the benefit of the applications. Both IntServ and
   DiffServ only fully make sense if linked to a policy mechanism. This
   mechanism must be able to make policy decisions, detect and resolve
   conflicts in policies, and enforce and monitor policies.

   Workshop participants almost unanimously agreed that they also
   required a scalable inter-domain resource manager (e.g., a bandwidth
   broker). Currently, if an RSVP session is run, each router along a



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   path becomes involved, with flow policing at each hop. Bandwidth
   Broker models include the bandwidth broker, a policy decision point
   (which makes admission control and policy decisions) and the policy
   enforcement points (i.e., edge routers) which provide for policing at
   the first hop and for remarking aggregate flows so that subsequent
   routers need only deal with the aggregate flows.

   IETF protocols that could be used to implement a Bandwidth Broker
   model (e.g., COPS, Diameter, and others) were also discussed.  The
   Diameter protocol is interesting in this context, because it provides
   set up mechanisms for basic network resource allocations and
   reallocations, as well as optional allocations.- All of these can be
   used for various types of bandwidth broker implementations, including
   those directed at QoS, using RSVP type information. Diameter
   currently does not provide path information, but instead relies on
   network pathway information established at ingress and egress nodes.
   However, the status of Diameter is still open in the IETF.

   COPS was initially developed as a mechanism for establishing RSVP
   policy within a domain and remains intra-domain centric. It is a
   useful intra-domain mechanism for allocating bandwidth resources
   within a policy context. Work is now being conducted to use COPS for
   establishing policy associated with a DiffServ-capable network. COPS
   is designed to facilitate communication between the PDP and the PEP,
   carrying policy decisions and other information.

   To implement any type of Bandwidth Broker model, it is necessary to
   establish a mechanism for policy exchanges.  The Internet2's Qbone
   working group is currently working to define a prototype inter-domain
   bandwidth broker signaling protocol. This work is being coordinated
   with IETF efforts.

   Another mechanism is required for traffic shaping and SLA policing
   and enforcement.  One mechanism is fair queuing in its various forms,
   which has been described as TDM emulation without the time and space
   components. Techniques have been used for several years for fair
   queuing for low speed lines. For DS-3 with 40 byte packets and OC-3c
   speeds with 200-byte packets, weighted fair queuing uses a deficit
   round-robin algorithm that allows it to scale. It is capable of flow
   discrimination based on stochastically hashing the flows. An
   additional expansion of this technique is to preface this technique
   with class indicators. Currently, classification techniques are based
   on IP precedence. However, classification will soon be achieved in
   many routers using Diffserv code points (DSCPs) to specify the type
   of conditioning to be applied.  The complete requirements of policing
   for DiffServ implementations, e.g., via bandwidth brokers, have not
   yet been fully explored or defined.




Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   Network monitoring capabilities (i.e., querying the network for state
   information on a micro and macro level) that support middleware and
   application services were identified as a core requirement. In fact,
   a network instrumentation and measurement infrastructure, upon which
   a set of intelligent network management middleware services can be
   built, is absolutely critical.

   Current mechanisms (e.g. ICMP, SNMP) were not deemed robust enough
   for middleware and applications developers to determine the state of
   the network, or to verify that they were receiving the specific type
   of treatment they had requested.  This was judged especially true of
   a network providing QoS or CoS. Indeed, it is not at all clear that
   SNMP, for example, is even the right architectural model for
   middleware to use to enable applications to determine the state of
   the network. Other capabilities, such as OcxMon, RTFM, new MIBs, and
   active measurement techniques (e.g., IPPM one-way delay metrics) need
   to be made available to middleware services and applications.

   The provisioning of differentiated services takes the Internet one
   step away from its "dumb" best effort status.  As the complexity of
   the network increases (e.g. VPNs, QoS, CoS, VoIP, etc.), more
   attention must be paid to providing the end-user/customer or network
   administrator with the tools they require to securely and dynamically
   manage an adaptable network infrastructure. Differentiated services
   means that theoretically some traffic gets better service than other
   traffic; subsequently, one can expect to pay for better service,
   which means that accounting and billing services will be one of the
   important middleware core components that others will rely upon. The
   model and protocols necessary to accomplish this are not developed
   yet.

12.0  Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting

   The IETF's AAA working group is focusing on the requirements for
   supporting authentication, authorization, accounting, and auditing of
   access to and services provided by network resource managers (e.g.,
   bandwidth brokers). These processes constitute an important security
   infrastructure that will be relied upon by middleware and
   applications. However, these components are only basic security
   components. A public key infrastructure (PKI) was identified as a
   crucial security service infrastructure component. For example, the
   PKI will be required to support the transitivity of authentication,
   authorization, and access control and, where appropriate, accounting
   and billing.  It was noted that, except for issues dealing with group
   security and possibly more efficient and simple management, there are
   no real technical challenges preventing the wide scale deployment of
   a PKI support structure at this time. Instead, the main obstacles to
   overcome are mostly political and economic in nature. However,



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   additional middleware may be required to better facilitate a PKI.
   That being said, some people believe that we do have some large
   technical security challenges, revocation lists and security with
   respect to changing group memberships being two examples.

   Middleware and security support is also required for newer
   applications (e.g., proxy agents that would act on a process or
   application's behalf and gather the necessary certificates for access
   and using resources). A particularly difficult example is remote
   collaboration. Accessing a particular resource may require a user
   and/or application to gather certificates from more than one policy-
   controlling agent. It is also true that an entity may have various
   identities that are dependent on the task they are performing (usage
   or role based) or the context of the application.  In order for the
   PKI to become truly functional on a ubiquitous level, there needs to
   exist a set of independent signing authorities that can vouch for the
   top-level certificate authorities.

   There are also higher-level middleware services which will build on
   public key infrastructure, notary services and provenance
   verification.  As we move from a relatively dumb network (e.g. best
   effort IP) to an Internet with embedded intelligence (e.g., DiffServ,
   IntServ, bandwidth brokers, directory-enabled networks, etc.), the
   secure exchange of information will become even more important.  In
   addition, as we start to provide differentiated services, accounting
   and statistics gathering will become much more important. We also
   need to provide for the integrity and security of collecting,
   analyzing, and transporting network management and monitoring
   information.  And the issues of data privacy and integrity, along
   with addressing denial of service and non-repudiation, cannot be
   ignored.

13.0   Network Management, Performance, and Operations

   Network management capabilities were identified as being paramount to
   the success of middleware deployment, and subsequently to the success
   of the application. Many of the issues addressed here are not part of
   standard NOC operations. In a more complex world of QoS, CoS, and
   micro prioritization, reactions to network failures must be handled
   differently than current procedures. Allocations are more dynamic,
   especially additions, deletions, and changes with additional sets of
   requirements, such as priorities and new types of inter-domain
   interactions. These will inevitably increase the complexity of
   network management.

   There are many microscopic and macroscopic network management
   projects focusing on making both active and passive network
   statistics and information available to end-users. Current visual



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   debugging and analysis capabilities (e.g., those developed by
   NLANR/CAIDA) are crucial tools for network administrators and
   designers for understanding their networks. In addition, current
   network management techniques and mechanisms, which were designed for
   network designers and managers, need to be adapted to provide a
   dynamic and relevant set of information to the middleware or
   application service software. This will allow the programs to
   dynamically adapt to the changing state of the network infrastructure
   while ensuring the integrity and security of the network and other
   resources.

   Another aspect of network management that has not received the
   necessary attention, is the need for modeling and analysis tools for
   network and middleware designers. CIM and DEN show great promise in
   providing a common framework for modeling the management of network
   elements and services as well as users, applications, and other
   resources of the network. Undoubtedly, middleware designers will
   place new requirements on CIM and DEN that will cause these
   approaches to evolve.

14.0  Middleware to support multicast applications

   IP multicast - that is, the routing and forwarding of mutlicast
   packets in an IP-based network, is in the view of the workshop part
   of the basic network infrastructure. The Internet Group Multicast
   Protocol, which manages the joining and leaving of multicast groups,
   could also be considered a basic network service. However, there is a
   tremendous need for middleware services to make multicast useable for
   various applications, much like TCP played a key role in making IP
   applications useable. Specifically, one might reasonably want
   middleware services to provide authenticated control of multicast
   services. Examples of these services include the creation and joining
   of multicast groups, multicast address management, multicast channel
   directories (there has already been considerable work in this area),
   various forms of reliable multicast services (this has been an IRTF
   research area), and to secure multicast groups through various
   cryptographic strategies. In addition, because of the large impact
   that multicast can have on a network, multicast management middleware
   services, particularly in conjunction with QoS, will be needed, as
   will services to link together multicasting within various networks
   that do not directly interchange multicast routing information. It
   should be noted, however, that several security issues with
   multicast, especially groups with dynamic membership policies, still
   need to be resolved.







Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


15.0 Java and Jini

   Java was chosen as an example of a heterogeneous runtime support
   system for the sake of discussion as to whether it could be qualified
   as a development language particularly suitable for the development
   of middleware. The consensus was that the Java language and compilers
   are important in the current distributed model of the Internet and
   for the support of middleware (i.e., middleware written using Java).
   Also, a virtual Java machine located on a system can be considered
   middleware as much as any operating system or network operating
   systems would be considered middleware. Jini middleware technology
   not only defines a set of protocols for discovery, join, and lookup,
   but also a leasing and transaction mechanism to provide resilience in
   a dynamic networked environment.  Java and Jini will be dependent on
   a functioning PKI, especially for signed applets. That being said,
   there are security concerns with both Java and Jini that need to be
   addressed, such as allowing the downloading of applets and servlets.

16.0  Security Considerations

   This document is a report of a workshop in which security was a
   common theme, as can be seen by the references to security through
   out the document; but the workshop did not reach any specific
   recommendations for new security-related terminology.

17.0 Summary

   Middleware may have components and services that only exist in the
   persistent infrastructure, but it will also have components that
   enable and support end-to-end (i.e. application to application or
   host to host) interaction across multiple autonomous administrative
   domains. A set of core persistent middleware services is required to
   support the development of a richer set of middleware services which
   can be aggregated or upon which applications will be based (e.g., an
   onion or layered model). This set of core middleware services will
   help applications leverage the services and capabilities of the
   underlying network infrastructure, along with enabling applications
   to adjust in changes to the network. The particular set of such
   services utilized by an application or process will be a function of
   the requirements of the application field or affinity group (e.g.,
   network management or high energy physics applications) wishing to
   utilize the network or distributed data/computation infrastructure.
   This document discusses some of the basic and core middleware
   services, which include, but are not limited to: directories,
   name/address resolution services, security services (i.e.,
   authentication, authorization, accounting, and access control),
   network management, network monitoring, time servers, and accounting.
   Network level capabilities, such as multicast and DiffServ, are not



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   classified as middleware; rather, they are enabling infrastructure
   services upon which middleware will be built or which middleware may
   use and manage.  A second level of important middleware services,
   which builds upon these core set of services, may include
   accounting/billing, resource managers, single sign-on services,
   globally unique names, metadata servers, and locators.

   A recognized goal is to provide a set of middleware services that
   enable access to and management of the underlying network
   infrastructure and support applications wishing to make use of that
   network-based infrastructure. It appears necessary to agree to a
   framework of services for the support, provisioning and operations,
   and management of the network. Today, we have piecemeal activities
   already being pursued in various standards organizations. These
   include efforts in the IETF and DMTF (e.g., AAA, Policy Framework,
   DiffServ, DEN, CIM, etc.), as well as in the advanced application
   environments (e.g., Grid Forum, the PACIs, NGI, Internet2, etc.).
   Both of these efforts require the integration and management of many
   infrastructure components, not just networks; however, we have no
   overall framework that pulls all of these together, or a mechanism to
   coordinate all of these activities.  We are just embarking on the
   development of a rich plan of middleware services. Consequently, we
   have a lot of work yet to be done. For instance, as we move into an
   electronic persistent presence (EPP) environment where multiple
   instances of an identity or person (or even their proxy agents) are
   supported, we will require enhanced locator and brokering services.
   The directory (e.g., DNS or X.500) and locator services of today may
   not be appropriate for this task.

   One goal of the workshop was to identify research and development
   areas in middleware that federal agencies and industry may choose to
   support. The workshop highlighted a few areas that may benefit from
   additional R&D support.  These areas include, but are not limited to:

   -  inter-domain resource management architecture and protocols (e.g.,
      inter-domain bandwidth brokers)
   -  resource languages that describe and enable the management of a
      wide variety of resources (e.g., networks, data bases, storage,
      online facilities, etc.
   -  avoiding deadlock and ensuring efficiency with resource managers
   -  network management tools and APIs that provide macroscopic and
      microscopic real-time infrastructure
   -  information to middleware services and applications (not just MIBs
      and SNMP access)
   -  domain and inter-domain accounting and billing
   -  monitoring and verification services of contracted infrastructure
      services
   -  enhanced locators that can locate resources and resource managers



Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   -  cross administrative policy negotiation and authentication
   -  middleware bypass (i.e. access to raw system or network resources
      metadata (i.e., data that is used to describe data found in
      directories or exchanged between services such as resource
      managers, PDPs, PEPs, directories, accounting and billing
      services, etc.)
   -  middleware support for mobile or nomadic use
   -  support for availability of resources (i.e. replication and load
      balancing

   This workshop was just one small step in identifying relevant
   middleware topics, technologies and players.  Even though this
   workshop did not arrive at a consensual definition of middleware, it
   did identify the need for additional work. Specifically, further work
   is needed to identify and qualify middleware services for specific
   affinity groups (e.g. Internet2, Education, the PACIs, Grids, etc.)
   as well as to define a macroscopic framework that incorporates the
   middleware work of the IETF, DMTF and other relevant organizations
   such as the Grid Forum.

18.0  Participants

   Deb Agarwal <deba@george.lbl.gov>, Bob Aiken <raiken@cisco.com>, Guy
   Almes <almes@internet2.edu>, Chase Bailey <chase@cisco.com>, Fred
   Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Pete Beckman <beckman@lanl.gov>, Javad
   Boroumand <jborouma@nsf.gov>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, George
   Brett <ghbrett@mindspring.com>, Rich Carlson <racarlson@anl.gov>,
   Brian Carpenter <bcarpent@uk.ibm.com>, Charlie Catlett
   <catlett@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Bill Cheng <wtcheng@us.ibm.com>, Kim Claffy
   <kc@caida.org>, Bill Decker <Wdecker@nsf.gov>, Christine Falsetti
   <cfalsetti@arc.nasa.gov>, Ian Foster <foster@mcs.anl.gov>, Andrew
   Grimshaw <grimshaw@cs.virginia.edu>, Ed Grossman
   <egrossma@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Ted Hanss <ted@internet2.edu>, Ron Hutchins
   <ron@oit.gatech.edu>, Larry Jackson <jackson@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Bill
   Johnston <Wejohnston@lbl.gov>, Juerg von Kaenel <jvk@us.ibm.com>,
   Miron Livny <miron@cs.wisc.edu>, Cliff Lynch <cliff@cni.org>, Joel
   Mambretti <j-mambretti@nwu.edu>, Reagan Moore <moore@sdsc.edu>, Klara
   Nahstedt <klara@cs.uiuc.edu>, Mike Nelson <mrn@us.ibm.com>, Bill
   Nitzberg <nitzberg@nas.nasa.gov>, Hilarie Orman <ho@darpa.mil>, John
   Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>, Rick Stevens <stevens@mcs.anl.gov>,
   John Strassner <johns@cisco.com>, Ben Teitelbaum <ben@advanced.org>,
   George Vanecek <g.vanecek@att.com>, Ken Klingenstein
   <Ken.Klingenstein@Colorado.EDU>, Arvind Krishna
   <akrishna@us.ibm.com>, Dilip Kandlur <kandlur@us.ibm.com







Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


19.0   URLs/references

   Please see http://www.mcs.anl.gov/middleware98  for copies of the
   slides presented at the workshop as well as a list of related URLs on
   applications, middleware and network services.

20.0 Authors' Addresses

   Editor:  Bob Aiken
            EMail: raiken@cisco.com

   Authors:

   Bob Aiken
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   6519 Debold Rd.
   Sabillasville, Md.  21780 USA

   Phone: +1 301 271 2919
   EMail: raiken@cisco.com


   John Strassner
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Phone: +1 408 527 1069
   EMail: johns@cisco.com


   Brian E. Carpenter
   IBM United Kingdom Laboratories
   MP 185, Hursley Park
   Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN, UK

   EMail: brian@hursley.ibm.com


   Ian Foster
   Argonne National Laboratory
   The University of Chicago
   Argonne, IL 60439  USA

   Phone: +1 630 252 4619
   EMail: foster@mcs.anl.gov





Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


   Clifford Lynch
   Coalition for Networked Information
   21 Dupont Circle
   Washington, DC  20036

   Phone: +1 202 296 5098
   EMail: cliff@cni.org


   Joe Mambretti
   International Center for Advanced Internet Research
   1890 Maple, Suite 150
   Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201

   Phone: +1 847 467 3911
   EMail: j-mambretti@nwu.edu


   Reagan Moore
   University of California, San Diego
   NPACI/SDSC, MC 0505
   9500 Gilman Drive
   La Jolla, CA 92093-0505   USA

   EMail: moore@sdsc.edu


   Benjamin Teitelbaum
   Advanced Networks & Services, Inc.

   EMail: ben@internet2.edu




















Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 2768          A Report of a Workshop on Middleware     February 2000


21.0  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Aiken, et al.                Informational                     [Page 29]

