RE: [regrep-security] RE: Issue 170 resolution in RS 2.01

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

Farrukh, I respectfully request that you do not presume to speak for me.  If
I am asked a question by someone on this list or on other lists, please
provide me the courtesy of allowing me to answer for myself.  

Suresh, I do not agree that the suggested word-smithing with resolve the
issue for me.  Correcting ContentOwner to SubmittingOrganization only
resolves one of the actors.    

There are two tables, Registry Users and Default Access Control Policies.
Registry Users contains 7 rows, describing the some functional
characteristics of 7 separate "actors" and available mappings to ISO 11179
analogs.  
	Registry Authority
	Registry Administrator
	Registered User
	Registry Guest
	Submitting Organization
	Registry Reader
	Responsible Organization
	Registry Client

The Default Access Control Policies Table describes the Permissions for only
3 roles.  Two of these roles appear to match those details described within
the Registry Users table.  You have already described the required
correction for ContentOwner.
	ContentOwner
	RegistryAdministrator
	RegistryGuest

I strongly suggest that we completely describe the relationship between
"actors" and "roles."  Are they the same?  If they are the same then please
list them all in both places.  What about the other Registry Users listed in
Table 5.3.  How are they dealt with "by default?"  It is my opinion that if
we are to delineate 7 specific user "types" (i.e., roles) then we should
also stipulate specific default access policies for those 7 specific user
"types."

On a minor note, Table 5.3 lists the name of the actor with spaces between
words while the corresponding role in Table 9.7 lists the role without
spaces between words.  This is mildly confusing.  Which is correct?  We
should be consistent.

Joel


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:56 AM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: 'Munter, Joel D'; 'anne@drummondgroup.com';
regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep-security] RE: Issue 170 resolution in RS 2.01


Hi Suresh,

I have a feeling that Joel is reacting to the statement "This is not an
error,
and only a readability issue.".

IMO, there is an acknowledged issue of consistency between the two tables. I
believe that the resolution that you suggested to Anne fixes the issues of
inconsistency between the two tables (I have nt actually checked but trust
that
it does). So the issue is getting resolved regardless of what our individual
feelings may be on the severity of the issue.

Joel is you have any  question remaining on whether the consistency issue is
completely addressed by the resolution Suresh sent then please articulate
the
remaining consistency issues.

Thanks to both of you for helping sort this issue to conclusion for 2.1.

"Damodaran, Suresh" wrote:

> Joel,
>
> "the two tables, Registry User (Actor Column) and
> Default Access Control Policies (Role Column) should be synchronized."
>
> Can you please explain what you mean by "synchronized?"
> -Suresh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Munter, Joel D [mailto:joel.d.munter@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:44 AM
> To: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'anne@drummondgroup.com'
> Cc: regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Farrukh Najmi'
> Subject: RE: [regrep-security] RE: Issue 170 resolution in RS 2.01
>
> Suresh,
>
> During my detailed analysis, I had re-read the respective areas of the
spec
> and see this as slightly more than readability issues.  I believe that
there
> is a significant disconnect between the tables described.  Roles are
> described in one place and policies assigned against a different set of
> roles is described elsewhere.  Here is my detailed read on the problem:
>
>         Within section 9.7 Access Control, there are only
>         3 roles defined, ContentOwner, RegistryAdministrator,
>         and RegistryGuest.  However, there is no consistency
>         between Section 5.3, Registry Users - Table1 - the
>         Actor column, and the information within Table11 -
>         Default Access Control Policies - the Role column.
>         The proposed resolution to the reviewer who raised the
>         issue is "Yes there is a consistency issue here. It is
>         a minor issue since we do not currently provide interface
>         for custom access control policies."
>
> I truly believe that the two tables, Registry User (Actor Column) and
> Default Access Control Policies (Role Column) should be synchronized.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:32 AM
> To: 'anne@drummondgroup.com'
> Cc: regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Farrukh Najmi'
> Subject: [regrep-security] RE: Issue 170 resolution in RS 2.01
>
> Anne,
>
> This is not an error, and only a readability issue.
>
> Line 3935-3936 says "content owner" maps to "Submitting Organization"
> in this version of the spec". Remove that sentence.
>
> Change "Content Owner" to "Submitting Organization"
> in the table.
>
> Also replace "Content Owner" with "Submitting Organization"
> in section 9.7.
>
> Also, in section 5.3 - (lines 336-337)
>         - reword the first sentence as "We describe the actors who use the
> registry below"
>         - remove the second sentence.
>
> Cheers,
> -Suresh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:17 AM
> Cc: regrep-security@lists.oasis-open.org; Suresh Damodaran
> Subject: Issue 170 resolution in RS 2.01
>
> Suresh,
>
> We need to provide exact direction to Anne on how to fix this issue for
> RS 2.01 (next version). Can you assign or take teh action item to get
> this information to Anne (and copy me) ASAP. Thanks. Issue text is
> listed below for your convenience.
>
> Issue 171:
> -----------
> In 9.7. Access Control, there is only 3 role as Content owner,
> registry administrator, registry guest.
> However, there is no consistency between 5.3. Registry Users, Table1.
> Actors and Table11. Role.
> I think it's better to have some consistency to describe the role of
> actors.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

--
Regards,
Farrukh



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>