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: Re: [xacml] clarifications/questions for worklist items 26, 29 and32

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Frank Siebenlist wrote:

> TC members,
> I looked through the review and added some comments and clarifications.
> [ 26 discussion snipped ]

> > ...
> > 29. Policy Authority Delegation
> >
> >   We had a number of questions about this.  It needs
> >   clarification.  Issues:
> >
> >   a. Define "domain".  What does it correspond to?
> >   b. Could this be solved using a subject-domain or
> >      resource-domain attribute that the PEP should include in its
> >      Request, and that policies could match on?
> >
> >   Wait for Frank to provide clarification before putting on F2F
> >   agenda.
> >
> >   F2F: not until/unless Frank clarifies, but then possibly
> I have the feeling that all the "delegation" related items will be solved when
> we tackle the "right of a subject to administer policy for a certain target".
> I reworded the description in item#29:
> 29. Policy Authority Delegation
>     The ability to express in a policy rule that a certain authorization
> authority is allowed to administer access control policy for a certain target.

Isn't this just straightforward application of XACML policy to a
"administer access control policy" action for a certain target?

Sorry Frank, but I'm having a hard time parsing the following description.

> The evaluation for a certain target should probably yield "Indeterminate" or
> "Not Applicable" (?) according to the local policy,

Why *should* it yeild Indeterminate or Not Applicable?

> it should yield "Permit" for the right of an authorization authority to
> administer the policy for that target, and either the authorization
> query to that authorization authority's PDP should yield "Permit" or the
> evaluation of the pushed access control assertion by that authorization
> authority should yield "Permit". If the local policy yield either
> "Permit" or "Deny", the foreign authorization authority doesn't have to
> be considered.(?)

Okay now I am afraid, I'm lost.  Do you have a specific use case for this
one that we can see what your requirements are?


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