[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1
Daniel Engovatov wrote: > Overall - rather close. I guess I want to see the next iteration of > Anne's Proposal before I make further suggestions. Thanks for the comments. Yes, I also want to see her text...I just wanted to get our thoughts thus far into one place :) > In the example, I was thinking the "ancestors" (Adding "resource-" in > the name seems redundant - it is in the resource: namespace) should > normally include the resource-id: resource is its own ancestor. That > simplifies the most typical rule target: apply a rule to a resource and > all its dependants. Oh. That sounds ok. Sorry I missed that detail. As for the name, I was just going with the convention we have now (resource-id, resource-location, etc.), but that's not a big deal. > We are not trying to model resource structure. I think that our only > goal would be to define a useful scheme to specify applicable rules. Agreed. We're providing a way to handle resource structure, but we're not defining what that structure looks like. > We definitely could reserve some useful names for the typical > hierarchical schemes, such as "resource-parents", but I would not think > they should be mandatory to define. That's fine by me. There has been some discussion about the attributes we might define, but I don't think we need to nail that down right away. Thanks! seth
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]