OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Minutes of XACML TC Meeting of May 1 2003


May 1, 2003 XACML TC Concall Meeting Minutes



(voting members)

Carlisle Adams,

Michiharu Kudo,

Anne Anderson,

Steve Crocker -- scribe,

Simon Godik,

Bill Parducci,

Hal Lockhart,

Steve Anderson,

Daniel Engovatov,

Tim Moses. 


(prospective member)

Frank Siebenlist



Quorum was reached.  Meeting brought to order.


1) Hal reported on his talk at the Network Applications Consortium

(NAC) Spring Meeting.  NAC is a meeting of senior technical people (architects, etc.).  Organizations may not join so marketing 'spin' is kept to a minimum. This year's two day meeting was centered around the theme of moving authorization into the infrastructure.  Three real world scenarios were posed to six vendors, of which Hal was the one who covered XACML and SAML.  The vendors spoke on the topic of how their products would address the three scenarios.


A lot of interest was shown in the standardized access control languages.  Some discussion took place on what level of granularity should be covered by WAM (Web Access Method?) products.  Vendors tended to a course grain approach, Hal advocated a fine grain use.


Hal reported the Burton Group lead a discussion on standardized API's for authorization at NAC.  That led to a brief discussion in our phone meeting on api's.  Mention was made of GARP API, the Open Group API, SAML authorization decision request as an API, and the Global Grid Forum.  Frank said he worked in the same group as Cliff Newman of the GARP API but more promise now lies with the Global Grid Forum.  Frank is going to send pointers and summary information on the Grid api system and its concentration on port types.


In summary, Hal reported that there was a "large appetite" for something like XACML and over the couple few years we can look forward to wide adoption of XACML.


2) Carlisle led us through a run down of the XACML 1.1 work items listed in the April 17th meeting notes.


Item A:  Fully specify hierarchical resources


      Simon got no feedback yet on his writeup.  Comments from Seth

      Proctor got waylaid but will be forwarded by Anne.  Simon and Hal

      clarified that the intended use of hierarchical resources is in the

      specification of a policy's target (e.g. this policy applies to all

      objects under this node in a tree), not in the specification of a

      request (e.g. a single request can not ask for authorization of an

      action for all objects under a node in the tree).


      Carlisle reminded us we have set a May 29 deadline for agreement on

      solutions to the work items.


Item I: Add an ID Attribute so can reference elements easily for

        use with Digital Signatures


      Simon proposes an XPath ID type as a candidate for this attribute

      type.  He is proposing changing the an anyURI type to a type ID.

      There was some discussion about issues of signing a policy when the

      policy contains references to XML.


Item B:  Deterministic algorithm for combining obligations

Item G:  Obligations in Rule Element


      Michiharu-- items B and G are not yet done.  On item G, he wants to

      hear more on extensions to obligations.


Item E:  Condition References

Item F:  Properties for Conditions


      Michiharu-- first proposals for these items have been posted.


Item C:  References to Rules.


      Anne will repost the proposal for more comments.  It seems to

      have been lost in the flurry.


Item H:  Define any elements needed in the XACML schema for use by

         a Digital Signature envelope for XACML


      Anne stated that this is dropped, the SAML attribute is sufficient.

      Simon and Anne had a discussion on why then do we need the ID

      attribute (Item I)?


      Anne-- When you sign the top policy in SAML, you need references to

      the policies.

      Simon-- The example in the Digital Signature document shows you how to

      sign with a manifest.

      Anne-- The issue is that when dereferencing a policyID, you may get a

      different policy.


      Various opinions on whether or not digital signatures were too complex

      to be widely adopted and useful were briefly discussed.


3) Work Items beyond XACML 1.1


    a)  Approaches for Policy combination and compilation.


      The comments by Maryann Hondo and Tony Nadalin have not been received.

      General consensus (no vote) was obtained that we've agreed to the

      high level architecture of his porposal and we'll move forward with

      fleshing out the details.  Tim discussed his writeup in terms of three



      1) version 4 of the use cases.


      2) an algorithm for combining/merging policies into one policy.


      3) a map from WFDL service or ports to XACML components. (see the

      attachment to Tim's mail of 4/22/03.


      Tim explained the mapping from WSPL to XACML briefly as summarized



      A service on a WSPL port maps to an XACML PolicySet (PS) with a

      resource specifying the port and an action specifying the service.

      Each aspect of the service on the port maps to a distinct policy under

      the PS.  E.g. reliable-messaging maps to one policy, cryptographic

      security to another policy and privacy to a third policy.  These

      policies are combined by the PS as a conjuction (by a deny-overrides

      algorithm).  These policies combine their rules as a disjuction (using

      a permit-overrides algorithm).  The condition in each rule must be a

      conjunction of predicates.


      Feedback was it will need to be more readable, perhaps by starting

      with an example.


      The version of WSPL referenced needs to be clearly stated as the

      terminology has changed from version 1.0.  This will come out sometime

      after 1.1, as a profile for XACML.


      A target date was set for when we vote for submission of this spec as

      a standard.  We'll vote on it at the last general body meeting in September.


Meeting was adjorned.



Next weeks focus group adjenda is a return back to 1.1 work items.


1) Hierarchical resources proposal

2) attribute ID's

3) other items.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]