Negotiation for Authorisation in Virtual Organisations

  • Shamimabi Paurobally
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 238)


In virtual organisations, the authorisation and expression of policies in terms of direct trust relationships between providers and consumers have the problems of scalability, flexibility, expressibility, and lack of policy hierarchy because of interdependent institutions and policies [7]. This paper proposes a bilateral negotiation protocol and an English auction to negotiate a list of credentials to be exchanged after a service level agreement has been drafted, and that would provide sufficient trustworthiness for the parties in the negotiation. We implement and evaluate our algorithms as grid services in a virtual organisation (VO) to show the effect of negotiation on the trustworthiness achieved within a VO


Service Level Agreement Grid Service Virtual Organisation Negotiation Protocol English Auction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    I. Foster and C. Kesselman. The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure. Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keith B. Frikken, Jiangtao Li, and Mikhail J. Atallah. Trust negotiation with hidden credentials, hidden policies, and policy cycles. In NDSS, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, A. R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and M. Wooldridge. Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2):199–215, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Jonczy and R. Haenni. Implementing credential networks. In K. Stølen, W. H. Winsborough, F. Martinelli, and F. Massacci, editors, iTrust’06, 4rd International Conference on Trust Management, LNCS 3986, pages 164–178, Pisa, Italy, 2006. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Kelly, P. Jithesh, P. Donachy, T. Harmer, M. Perrott, R.and McCurley, M. Townsley, J. Johnston, and S. McKee. Genegrid: A commercial grid service oriented virtual bioinformatics laboratory. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Conference on Services Computing, Orlando, pages 43–50, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lars Olson, Marianne Winslett, Gianluca Tonti, Nathan Seeley, Andrzej Uszok, and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Trust negotiation as an authorization service forweb services. In ICDE Workshops, page 21, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laura Pearlman, Von Welch, Ian T. Foster, Carl Kesselman, and Steven Tuecke. A community authorization service for group collaboration. CoRR, cs.DC/0306053, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniele Quercia, Manish Lad, Stephen Hailes, Licia Capra, and Saleem Bhatti. Strudel: supporting trust in the dynamic establishment of peering coalitions. In SAC, pages 1870–1874, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon Firth. The Future is Grid. Hewlett-Packard (HP) Labs,, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Winsborough, K. Seamons, and V. Jones. Automated trust negotiation. In DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition (DISCEX 2000), 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shamimabi Paurobally
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations