[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Access control use cases
Can you explain how Submit being used in both cases causes a problem. I may not respond right away as I have to leave shortly. "Damodaran, Suresh" wrote: > The problem is not with save and update being done in the same operation - > rather "submit" being used for both update and to create a new entry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:12 PM > To: Damodaran, Suresh > Cc: 'regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'sekhar.vajjhala@Sun.COM' > Subject: Re: Access control use cases > > Save and Update being done using the same operation is not unusual. UDDI > does the same thing. > Does this present a problem from an access control perspective? > > "Damodaran, Suresh" wrote: > > > Here is the use case that I am planning to submit to XACML COB > > today.Please comment.Some issues:1. How do we attach an access > > control policy for submitting a new RegistryObject?Should we allow all > > Submitting Organizations to submit RegistryObjects? In the use case,I > > have not mentioned "submit" operation in teh use case attached.2. If > > "submit" is used to "save/update" a RegistryObject, then the access > > control requirementswill de different while creating a new > > RegistryObject vs. updating an already existing one. For a new RO, we > > use whatever we comeup with (1) above, and for the existing, we create > > a "update"operation. Creating a new operation is a problem for Object > > Management Service? There must besome reason why update was not > > considered an operation?Thanks,-Suresh3. I have not created Roles in > > the use case, though we need to have it for ourselves. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Damodaran, Suresh > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:05 AM > > To: 'regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org'; > > 'sekhar.vajjhala@Sun.COM' > > Subject: Access control use cases > > > > Farrukh, Sanjay, thanks for your comments on the access > > control ops.Let me take it further. Please comment.The > > things that need to be done to complete the access control > > usecaseare:1. Enumerate the resources (in our case object > > types) that we want access control on Farrukh, you may be > > able to talk about how RIM changes will impact this.2. > > Identify the actions on these resources : There is > > consensus that we tackle -life cycle > > operations - read operation - update > > operation for V2. 3. Map to "Roles" or "Groups" the > > security actors (btw, mapping the security actorsto > > mainstream registry actors is an issue). As an example, > > Registry Publisher is anunambiguous actor from the security > > point of view (i.e., we cannot confusea Registry Guest from > > a Registry Publisher) [Farrukh had mentioned that Registry > > Guestcan also publish in the registry - in that case we > > can't make any distinction! - my thinkingis that we we > > separate roles as we fit now, and later combine the roles - > > comments?]4. Think of any preconditions for access as well > > as any post conditions that need to besatisfied after the > > access.Sanjay, I am hoping that the usecases for access that > > you are working can be expandedalong these lines. If you > > take some preliminary steps along these lines, it should > > help us.Cheers,-Suresh > > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh -- Regards, Farrukh
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh Najmi end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC