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: 25-Oct-07 XACML TC Meeting

1 Roll Call:

    To be supplied

2 Administrivia:

    Minutes from 11-Oct-07 approved:


    Review plans for RSA Interop

        Hal: Tentative confirmations from Oracle, IBM, Axiomatics,
        Securent and Sun. Dee talked to Tony in Barcelona. Need to
        get draft together quickly.

        Dave Staggs: got email from Tony re: interop. Possible
        health care demo. Involves privacy info.

        Hal: Tony- more extensive policy exchange

        Hal: Dee - wants draft in week or so.

        Hal: BEA will not commit unless minimal changes from existing

        Some discussion on multiple TC scenarios, ex ws-fed.

3 Issues:
    Issue 87:
       Rich: Need xpath feedback from others - i.e. someone who
       "knows" what the xpath constructs are "supposed to be"

        Rich to provide specific proposal for changes. Options of
        required optional/ resource:xpath in attr designator. (will
        be based on deduction of intent of xpath in spec unless
        specific feedback provided)

        Hal: (on related topic raised in addition to the core of
        issue 87) final step to compute decision, PDP rely on nothing except
        what's in request context - Niko mentions date/time, whatif
        consensus, send in req - will this be allowed next week,
        pdp will compute it. When CH finishes, PDP only considers
        what's in context. See: first of msg pair on Sat - contradiction
        PDP must verify attr as accurate - other than the current
        time. Make sure it's consistent everywhere. Niko's msg in
        xacml-dev list (comments above are re: last para in the
        following msg):


       (maybe Hal could elaborate a bit more - I am uncertain how
       "current-time" could be "next week". I am also uncertain looking
       at the above message exactly what is at issue, but I would like 
to know
       more about the "what if" capability - i.e. how would one set it up?)

    Issue: "An idea regarding decision explanation"

        Erik: Annotating attrs: - explanation of what can be done
        about it - many ways to respond. Policies that didn't
        match. Differentiate between attrs that users can do
        something about.


        ex. in above link: flight - reach a point where you PDP tests 
         permission (as opposed to checking if Target is applicable), 
return all
         the info - in general much to much and user will not know what 
to do

        Erik/Hal: Similar to obligations.

        Rich: the 3 reasons (why not similar to MissingAttributeDetail) 
are still
        subject to discussion:
        Basically, MustBePresent (lines 2614-2617 and related) can be used
        to force Indeterminate to be returned if attr missing. Putting 
aside the
        possible options implicit in lines 3321-3323, lines 3323-3326 
        that the attr info MAY be listed in the Response (presumably Policy
        determined and Policy writer would designate conditions, let's 
        trying to accomplish this get selected info back to user) and 
        7.15.3 gives guidelines on how to do this. My point is that with 
        controls available, one should be able to come up with a technique
        of the Policy Designer knowing which attr to flag to the user and
        use this technique to do it. A further control would be in addition,
        to use an Obligation to tell the PEP that if there is 
        then do what is necessary to inform the user and then possibly 
        the request. (This request re-submission appears to be an intended
        capability as per lines 3601-3603 of sec 7.15.3) I think this 
        the 1st 2 reasons in the above email. The 3rd reason, I agree, 
is not
        handled by this mechanism, because attr is not "missing" in that 

       Hal: too many Obligation reqts implicit here (in email, not 
         the above case). Gets complicated.
        Bottom line: need admin to tag specific things as useful to
        the users.
        Use Target to match on Resource, Action.
        Multiple missing attrs - Hal - if you can't it's a bug.

        Rich: May tie together w ws-xacml.

        Erik - another reason is if you have an extra attr could
        be the problem. Might need a PresentAttrDetail

        Hal: take 80/20 approach, we can't solve all problems, but there may
          some value of some of these ideas.

      issue 62 Update to policy distribution protocol.

        Hal: Naked policies or policies wrapped in Assertion - thinking
        both are required.

        Rich: policies - issuer (XACML 3.0) provides natural structuring -
        Hal:  provides several other ways, but does not want to cast any
        particular one as automatic.

Meeting adjourned approx 11:05 AM

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