As previously mentioned, FFI’s main testing partner on the topic of advanced publish/subscribe was Germany represented by IABG. Like FFI, they have their own implementation of a service oriented reference system which supports the advanced publish/subscribe features.
Due to the fact that both FFI and IABG had made considerable changes to their respective broker implementations, we first re-tested the basic subscription message exchange. This allowed us to iron out a few implementation bugs and achieve interoperability between the implementations. There was one minor issue related to the handling of the end-time for subscriptions in the FFI broker that was not fixed on-site, but a work-around was identified to allow testing to continue. This issue was rectified shortly after CWIX 2016.
After having confirmed that the new implementations were still compatible with respect to the basic subscription exchange, we tested publisher registration. During the CWIX 2016 planning process, it was agreed that testing the publisher registration process should be done by following the steps listed in Table 5.1.
Number Description Expected Result
1 The subscriber sends a subscription request to the broker
The broker receives the subscription request
2 The broker processes the subscription request
The brokers understands the request, including the filter
3 The broker returns a subscription reference to the subscriber
The subscriber receives the response message
4 The publisher publishes to the broker without registering
The publishing fails, and the message is not distributed
5 The publisher registers with the broker The registration is successfully processed by the broker
6 The publisher publishes to the broker The notification message is accepted by the broker
7 The broker sends matching notifications to
the consumer The consumer receives notifications
8 The consumer checks the received notification(s)
The consumer has received the correct notification(s)
Table 5.1 Steps in the advanced publish/subscribe tests
Successful completion of the first three steps means that a subscription has been created on behalf of a consumer. This is done first, so that the consumer can be used to verify if the broker behaves correctly.
After the subscription has been created, the publisher attempts to publish without registration.
The broker should at this point be configured to only accept messages from registered publishers, and will thus not forward the message to the consumer.
Finally, the publisher registers and then publishes the same message again. In this case, the message is accepted by the broker and forwarded to the consumer.
There were two such tests performed, one with FFI’s broker handling the registration and one with the IABG broker handling the registration. When FFI provided the broker, all the steps completed successfully as long as we used the work-around mentioned above to handle the minor subscription end time issue. When the tests were repeated with the IABG broker, there was an issue in step 4, as the message sent from an unregistered publisher still arrived at the consumer. This was due to the IABG broker supporting both registered publishers and unregistered publishers at the same time, and it was not possible to configure it to reject messages from unregistered sources. Despite this issue, it was concluded that publisher registration is a viable method for sharing topic information between brokers as long as all brokers re-register with their partner brokers when their set of provided topics changes.
With respect to testing pull points, there was no test process agreed on during the CWIX planning stage as it was unclear at that time whether there would be at least two pull point implementations available. At the time of the exercise execution, it was discovered that both the IABG and FFI brokers had support for this feature, so some informal tests were done to check for interoperability. The technical implementations proved to be interoperable, but, as expected, the WS-Notification pull point specification does not provide enough guidance on what the broker behavior should be (which of the stored messages should be sent when a consumer pulls for data etc.). It was agreed that a pull point profile is needed, and IABG took on the
responsibility to create the first draft for such a profile. This profile will, when ready, be brought into the TIDE Technology community for discussions.
6 Summary
This report has described the activities of the SOA focus area at CWIX 2016. Both the NNEC and FMN visions rely on the SOA paradigm for the technical integration of services and federation of systems, and together with TIDE, this focus area plays a vital role in the work towards these visions. FFI has participated in the SOA focus area over a number of years, and this year, we have focused on request/response- and publish/subscribe messaging.
Request/response messaging is the most fundamental building block of SOA environments, and interoperability at this level is equally fundamental. Although a mature area, new developments warrant continued testing within the area, and FFI contributed through testing of WSMP-RR.
We used our own multi-format track store for exchanging NIEM and NFFI messages. The results showed that the WSMP-RR protocol can be used successfully with multiple different formats and, by specifying the response format in the query, the same services can be used to provide multiple data formats.
Publish/subscribe messaging has also been a central subject of the SOA focus area for a number of years, but it is still less mature than request/response. FFI’s participation within this subject focused on two topics, namely publisher registration and the use of so-called pull points. FFI participated with a new WS-Notification broker, developed within the CoNSIS II cooperation, which supported both these topics.
Publisher registration is considered a promising mechanism both for security and for
disseminating information about available topics to subscribe to. Norway (represented by FFI) tested such registration together with Germany (represented by IABG), and our broker
successfully handled publisher registration both as a provider and as a consumer.
Pull points have emerged as a requirement, due to the need for being able to retrieve messages at a later point in time after the information has been published (e.g., a consumer arriving late or having been disconnected). No testing of pull points was formally planned for at CWIX this year, but some informal tests were done between FFI and IABG to check for interoperability.
The implementations proved to be interoperable, but more work is needed with respect to broker behavior.
CWIX continues to play an important role for work being done on core services, and it is still the primary venue for interoperability testing of NATO’s core services specifications. CWIX also provides an excellent opportunity to influence the specifications being developed by TIDE, before they are handed over to the FMN community. Therefore, FFI plans on a continued presence at the coming CWIX 2017 exercise.
References
[1] C4ISR Technology & Human Factors (THF) Branch, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), The C3 Taxonomy, Technical report, 2016. Document generated from the ACT Enterprise Mapping Wiki on November 2016.
[2] Coalition Network for Secure Information Sharing II, Task 2 Final Report, Technical Report, 2017 [to appear]
[3] T. Clausen, P. Jaquet and U. Herberg, The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2, RFC 7181, April 2014
[4] T.H. Bloebaum, F.T. Johnsen, P-P.Meiler (editors), SOA Recommendations for disadvantaged grids in the tactical domain, Final Report of IST-118, final draft submitted to NATO STO CSO on 15.12.16
[5] Frank T. Johnsen, Trude H. Bloebaum, Marianne R. Brannsten, Ketil Lund, Federico Mancini og Bård K. Reitan, Bakgrunn for og innretning av støtten til EP1667
“SMART” (in Norwegian), FFI-Report 2016/00848, Exempt from public disclosure
[6] NATO Allied Command Transformation, Focus Area Final Report, CWIX 2016, SOA, Enclosure 15 to the CWIX 2016 Final Report, September 2016
[7] Frank T. Johnsen, Marianne R. Brannsten, Espen Gudmundsen, Kari Helene Bekkelund and Magnus Brurås, Første brukertest i EP1667 “SMART” (in Norwegian), FFI-Report 2016/01524, Exempt from public disclosure
[8] E. Fosse, A. Borud, S. Grøneng, F. Gausland, S. Georgiev, M. McMillan, Interoperable NATO Track Entry Log, Technical Report, FFI reference number 16/01186, May 30, 2016
[9] T.H. Bloebaum, F.T. Johnsen, M.R. Brannsten, CWIX 2015 core service experimentation, FFI-Report 2015/01334
[10] T.H. Bloebaum, F.T. Johnsen, CWIX 2014 core service experimentation, FFI-Report 2014/01510
[11] NATO Allied Command Transformation, Focus Area Final Report, CWIX 2016, MIP, Enclosure 11 to the CWIX 2016 Final Report, September 2016
[12] NATO Allied Command Transformation, TIDE Transformational Baseline 4.0, available (access to TidePedia requires an account) at
https://tide.act.nato.int/tidepedia/index.php/TIDE_Transformational_Baseline_v4.0
[13] Tormod Haugland (NTNU), Inge E. Halsaunet (NTNU), Frank T. Johnsen and Trude H. Bloebaum, WS-Nu – open source WS-Notification broker documentation, FFI-note 2015/01250
[14] E. Bertelsen, G. Berthling-Hansen, C. Duvholt, E. Hov, E. Morch, A.H. Weisethaunet, OKSE 2.0 Protocol Mediator, Technical Report, FFI reference number 2016/01171, May 30, 2016
[15] Frank T. Johnsen and Trude H. Bloebaum, IST-150 NATO Core Services profiling for Hybrid Tactical Networks kick-off meeting, FFI-travel report 2016/02169
Administrative Staff Strategy and Planning
Defence Industrial Strategy Ministry of Defence
FFI´s Board
Analysis Cyber Systems and Maritime Systems
Electronic Warfare Air and
The Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) was founded 11th of April 1946. It is organised as an administrative agency subordinate to the Ministry of Defence.
FFI’s mIssIon
FFI is the prime institution responsible for defence related research in Norway. Its principal mission is to carry out research and development to meet the require-ments of the Armed Forces. FFI has the role of chief adviser to the political and military leadership. In particular, the institute shall focus on aspects of the development in science and technology that can influence our security policy or defence planning.
FFI’s vIsIon
FFI turns knowledge and ideas into an efficient defence.
FFI’s chArActerIstIcs
Creative, daring, broad-minded and responsible.
om FFI
Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt ble etablert 11. april 1946.
Instituttet er organisert som et forvaltnings organ med særskilte fullmakter underlagt Forsvarsdepartementet.
FFIs Formål
Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt er Forsvarets sentrale forskningsinstitusjon og har som formål å drive forskning og utvikling for Forsvarets behov. Videre er FFI rådgiver overfor Forsvarets strategiske ledelse. Spesielt skal instituttet følge opp trekk ved vitenskapelig og
militærteknisk utvikling som kan påvirke forutsetningene for sikkerhetspolitikken eller forsvarsplanleggingen.
FFIs vIsjon
FFI gjør kunnskap og ideer til et effektivt forsvar.
FFIs verdIer
Skapende, drivende, vidsynt og ansvarlig.