Proposed agenda - February 5 TC meeting

[Bill Parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>]

Date: Thursday, February 5, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM EDT
Tel: 512-225-3050 Access Code: 65998

Proposed Agenda:

10:00-10:05 Roll Call and Agenda Review

10:05 - 10:10 Vote on approval of minutes from January 22 meeting:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00052.html

10:10-10:15 Discuss next F2F
** If you haven't voted, please do so **:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/ballots.php

10:15-10:25 Discuss Status of RBAC Profile
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00054.html

10:25-11:00 Discuss 2.0 Work Items
topics for consideration (I have included all those currently shown by Anne as 
active for those of you on the road at the SAML meeting--we will not be able to 
address them all):

-7. ConditionReference

    Please review the proposed schema changes in
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00035.html
    and get comments to the list as soon as possible.  Accepted in
    general, but still need exact schema and text changes.

-11. XACML Extension Points

    Please review the proposed schema extension points in
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00046.html
    and get comments to the list as soon as possible.  This
    proposal needs discussion and vote.

-13. Optional Target Elements

    We approved making Target elements and Targets optional, but
    then Polar raised objections.  We need to see brief examples
    so members can determine what is needed for consistent
    semantics and simplicity of policy construction.

-18. Obligations in Rules

    Michiharu's proposal in
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200305/msg00011.html
    lists some open issues.  These need to be reviewed prior to
    the 5 Feb 04 meeting and resolved then, if possible.

-23. Use XQuery comparison functions for date, time, dateTime

    Waiting for XML Schema group to decide time type semantics.

-31. Attribute Issuer as Subject

    Need brief explanation from Frank as to how this would enable
    an administrative policies extension or profile.  I.e. is it
    really needed in 2.0, or can it be in a separate profile to be
    developed later or in parallel?

-32. Standardize naming to specify rules for requestor's authz policy

    Do we really think we will do something for XACML 2.0 on this?
    Can it be addressed in a separate profile document?

-36. Check for requester authorized to ask for authz decision

    Do we really think we will do something for XACML 2.0 on this?
    Can it be addressed in a separate profile document?

-37. Multiple <AttributeValue> elements for single <Attribute> in Request

    Rebekah is still reviewing handling of Attribute and
    AttributeValue in current draft.  Report expected by 5 Feb
    2004.

-38. Policies for the Administration of XACML Policies

    Is this same as 29?  Wouldn't it be addressed as part of the
    proposed "Administration Policy Profile"?

-42. Requests asking for access to multiple elements in a hierarchical resource

    Some lingering issues raised by Simon on associating semantics
    with the upward/downward elements in a resource hierarchy:
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00047.html [Simon add'l 
issues]
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200401/msg00048.html [Michiharu 
to Simon]

-45. Fix AttributeAssignment example in Section 4.2.4.3 (Rule 3)

    Review fix in Section 4.2.4.3 (Rule 3) in current draft.  Do
    we have to vote to accept it?

-46. Status detail for missing attributes

    Awaiting "missing attribute" schema from Seth.

-51. Clarify obligations: "fulfill" vs. "understand"

    Awaiting detailed proposal from Michiharu that will provide
    text clarifying the issues raised.

-52. New section explaining not backwards compatible and listing changes

    Awaiting detailed proposal from Bill.

-58. Standard hierarchy schemas

    Awaiting hierarchical file system schema proposal from Anne.

-59. Define standard "role" subject attribute

    Needs discussion and vote.

-60. Define standard "purpose" attributes

    Needs discussion and vote.