Advertisement

Law-Governed Internet Communities

  • Xuhui Ao
  • Naftaly Minsky
  • Thu D. Nguyen
  • Victoria Ungureanu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1906)

Abstract

We consider the problem of coordination and control of large heterogeneous groups of agents distributed over the Internet in the context of Law-Governed Interaction (LGI) [2,5]. LGI is a mode of interaction that allows a group of distributed heterogeneous agents to interact with each other with confidence that an explicitly specified policy, called the law of the group, is complied with by everyone in the group.

The original LGI model [5] supported only explicit groups, whose membership is maintained and controlled by a central server. Such a central server is necessary for applications that require each member of the group to know about the membership of the entire group. However, in the case where members do not need to know the membership of the entire group, such a central server can become an unnecessary performance bottleneck, as group size increases, as well as a single point of failure.

In this paper, we present an extension to LGI allowing it to support implicit groups, also called communities, which require no central control of any kind, and whose membership does not have to be regulated, and might not be completely known to anybody.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Herzberg, Y. Mass, J. Mihaeli, D. Naor, and Y. Ravid. Access control meets public key infrastructure, or: Assigning roles to strangers. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.H. Minsky and V. Ungureanu. Regulated coordination in open distributed systems. In David Garlan and Daniel Le Metayer, editors, Proc. of Coordination’97: Second International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages; LNCS 1282, pages 81–98, September 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N.H. Minsky and V. Ungureanu. A mechanism for establishing policies for electronic commerce. In The 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 322–331, May 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.H. Minsky and V. Ungureanu. Unified support for heterogeneous security policies in distributed systems. In 7th USENIX Security Symposium, January 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N.H. Minsky and V. Ungureanu. Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. TOSEM, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2000. (to be published, and currently available through http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/minsky/).
  6. 6.
    N.H. Minsky, V. Ungureanu, W. Wang, and J. Zhang. Building reconfiguration primitives into the law of a system. In Proc. of the Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (ICCDS’96), March 1996. (available through http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/minsky/.
  7. 7.
    R. Rivest. The MD5 message digest algorithm. Technical report, MIT, April 1992. RFC 1320.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Rivest and B. Lampson. SDSI-a simple distributed security infrastructure. Technical report, MIT, 1996. http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/rivest/sdsi.ps.
  9. 9.
    B. Schneier. Applied Cryptography. John Wiley and Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Tanenbaum. Distributed Operating Systems. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuhui Ao
    • 1
  • Naftaly Minsky
    • 1
  • Thu D. Nguyen
    • 1
  • Victoria Ungureanu
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations