[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xacml] XACML AzApi as part of F2F agenda
Prateek or Rich can provide you the pointers. I will try to dig it up in a bit. On 12/01/2009 09:03 AM, Ron Monzillo wrote: > Can someone provide a pointer to the proposed AzApi? > > Among other things, I'd like to come to understand the relationship or > mapping (if any) between the API that is being proposed and the Java > Permission and Policy model. > > If someone has already done that analysis I would be very much like to > see the results. > > thanks, > > Ron > > > Anil Saldhana wrote: >> Nataraj, >> >> While I agree to most of what you said, what the TC can deliver on is >> a language independent API similar to what DOM1 did. Java can be one >> of the bindings. I was of the feeling that AzApi is along those lines. >> >> Lack of standardized API has been the bane of many of the xacml >> implementors. >> >> Regards, >> Anil >> >> On 11/30/2009 10:28 PM, Nataraj Nagaratnam wrote: >> >>> Wrt #3 below around Java interfaces -- >>> >>> I am not sure if XACML TC is the right forum to define Java APIs, >>> especially when there are Java standard APIs already available and >>> in use. >>> JSR 115/JACC is sufficient in many cases - though it is written from >>> container viewpoint, it is equally applicable to any type of >>> enforcement >>> points (even if it is apps). If there gaps that should be addressed in >>> JACC, I think we should work that in. Those APIs are applicable to >>> Java >>> developers who can use it without any knowledge of XACML, or other >>> means >>> that a container may even provide. So it provides that level of >>> abstraction >>> as well. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Nataraj Nagaratnam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Prateek Mishra<prateek.mishra@oracle.com> >>> >>> To: XACML TC<xacml@lists.oasis-open.org> >>> >>> Date: 30/11/2009 22:38 >>> >>> Subject: [xacml] XACML AzApi as part of F2F agenda >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to request discussion of the XACML AzApi during the >>> F2F, as >>> we continue to work to advance this towards standard status. >>> >>> The API submission we made this past summer, has a number of features >>> would benefit from the TCs review - >>> >>> 1) Use of generics and a highly factored design to allow for new >>> categories and types of attributes. Is this adequate >>> to model the new materials in XACML 3.0 and other XACML use-cases? >>> >>> 2) A concept called "what is allowed" - which supports a limited but >>> extremely valuable form of scoped query against >>> access rules. One question is how this can be modeled or implemented in >>> the XACML 2.0/3.0 context >>> >>> 3) Based on experience with the open source and our internal review of >>> the API, we are planning to submit some additional >>> interfaces to the XACML TC within the next couple of weeks. The main >>> purpose of these interfaces is to allow Java developers with little >>> knowledge of XACML >>> to utilize the API. We would like to be able to describe these >>> interfaces in some detail to the TC, together with >>> the rationale for their introduction. >>> >>> I would request the Chairs to allocate an hour and half for these >>> discussions, which would be led by Rich Levinson (he is out today - but >>> I thought >>> it important to get this message out to the chairs and TC). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - prateek
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]