[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
>>>
The PDP has to repeatedly evaluate the policy template causing (somehow) the PIP to return a different parameter group each time, each parameter group corresponding to a different policy template data, and this must occur during the evaluation of a single authorization request.
<<<
Agreed.
My point was *if* there were some way for the PIP to figure out at PDP auth request evaluation time what policy template + data combination was intended for the current context, then the PIP should be able to return the appropriate parameter data set. Looking for an indicator in the request is one idea. Looking for an indicator in the policy ID is another idea.
However, since manipulating the policy ID basically requires copying the policy content for each distinct set of parameter data, this is no better than static reduction - and a lot more complex.
Storing a unique identifier of a parameter data set in an XML attribute on the <Policy/Set> element is another way to provide an indicator to the PIP, assuming the PIP can see what policy the PDP is evaluating at the moment of <AttributeDesignator> evaluation. However, this still requires policy replication per distinct parameter dataset, no better than static reduction.
Unless a useful indicator to the PIP of what parameter dataset applies to the current context can be found, I don't see that dynamic evaluation of policy template parameter data using <AttributeDesignator> in the existing XACML policy structure is feasible.
What the PIP really needs to know is that the current policy is the pairing of a policy (template) and a parameter data set. The PDP only needs the policy part, and only a single instance of the policy is needed if the binding of the parameter data to the policy is defined outside of the policy - such as in a policy reference, for example. Extend <PolicyIdReference> (IdReference, actually) with an additional attribute(s) or child element(s) indicating parameter data set(s) to apply to the referenced policy. But this is again heading "into the weeds" requiring new infrastructure and new data flow between subsystems in the PDP cloud.
So we're left with static reduction of policy templates + parameter data generating simple policies, replacing particular <AttributeDesignator> with bags of corresponding parameter values in <Condition> expressions but not in <Match> expressions.
-Danny
Danny Thorpe
Authorization Architect
Dell | Identity & Access Management, Quest Software
Quest Software is now part of Dell.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Legg [mailto:steven.legg@viewds.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:29 PM
> To: Danny Thorpe
> Cc: Jean-Paul Buu-Sao; Erik Rissanen; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
>
>
> Danny,
>
> On 10/10/2012 4:59 AM, Danny Thorpe wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The equivalent of dynamic policy template reduction would require
> > setting up a PIP with the PDP to provide the appropriate template-data
> > values for a particular attribute ID when the PDP evaluates the
> > <AttributeDesignator>. The PIP would need to be able to distinguish
> > between your two template cases below (Curtiss, Packard vs Curtiss,
> > Spad). If the PIP knew the context of which policy ID an
> > <AttributeDesignator> was being evaluated in, the PIP could make the
> > decision of whether to return (Curtiss, Packard) or (Curtiss,
> > Spad) to provide the semantics of the original policy template
> > concept. Knowledge of the PDP evaluation state by PIPs is not part of the
> XACML spec, but could be provided by an implementation.
> >
> > I could imagine manipulating the policy ID to indicate what substitution
> group(s) the policy belongs to.
> > Policy template (ID = "ABC") + parameter data set 1 => policy
> > ID="ABC/1". Policy template (ID = "ABC") + parameter data set 2 => policy
> ID="ABC/2". The policy bodies are identical, but their IDs differ.
> >
> > A more generalized solution would be to tie the parameter substitution
> > group selection to some artifact of the request (subject, resource) or
> > the environment (PDP host organization). PIP returns parameter data
> > set 1 for the target attribute ID if the request context also contains
> > a "green apple" attribute, else the PIP returns parameter data set 2. PIP
> returns parameter data set 1 if the organization's country is X, parameter
> data set 2 if the organization's country is Y, etc.
> >
> > But the PIP only needs to be that smart if the PDP is multi-tenant.
> > In the use case of a shared policy
> > (template) needing to be customized to a particular organization's
> > specific details (parameter data), if the PDP is dedicated to that one
> > organization, the PIP could simply be loading the specific details
> > (parameter
> > data) from a config file. No need for decision branches in the PIP at all.
>
> You only seem to be considering one possibility of use case 2 of the Policy
> Template Profile. I read use case 2 as allowing that the customization for a
> particular organization (i.e., the organization making use of the policy
> template, not the organizations that might be mentioned in the parameter
> data) could involve many policy template data. Those policy template data
> may overlap with the policy template data of another organization using the
> same template, or be completely different from the policy template data
> used by another organization using the same template. Use case 1 also calls
> for many policy template data in use at the same organization. I seem to
> recall it being written somewhere that the policy template data may number
> in the thousands.
>
> For dynamic template reduction where there are multiple policy template
> data, we can't rely on information in the request to cause the PIP to select
> one parameter group. The PDP has to repeatedly evaluate the policy
> template causing (somehow) the PIP to return a different parameter group
> each time, each parameter group corresponding to a different policy
> template data, and this must occur during the evaluation of a single
> authorization request.
>
> Regards,
> Steven
>
> >
> > -Danny
> >
> > *Danny Thorpe *
> >
> > Authorization Architect
> >
> > *Dell*| Identity & Access Management, Quest Software
> >
> > Quest Software is now part of Dell.
> >
> > *From:*Jean-Paul Buu-Sao [mailto:jean-paul.buu-sao@tscp.org]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:40 AM
> > *To:* Erik Rissanen; Steven Legg
> > *Cc:* Danny Thorpe; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
> >
> > For sake of clarity I would like to rephrase the thought process.
> >
> > Here is the excerpt of a policy (TAA-1.1), expressing that the subject
> > attribute "http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-03/claims/OrganizationID"; must
> > be in the bag {"Curtiss", "Packard"}
> >
> > <Condition
> > FunctionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:and">
> >
> > <Apply xsi:type="AtLeastMemberOf"
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-at-least-one-
> > member-of">
> >
> > <Apply
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-bag">
> >
> > <AttributeValue
> >
> DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string";>Curtiss</Attribut
> eV
> > alue>
> >
> > <AttributeValue
> >
> DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string";>Packard</Attribu
> teV
> > alue>
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > <AttributeDesignator AttributeId="http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-
> 03/claims/OrganizationID"
> > DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; />
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > (etc...)
> >
> > </Condition>
> >
> > Here is the excerpt of a policy (TAA-1.2), expressing that the subject
> > attribute "http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-03/claims/OrganizationID"; must
> > be in the bag {"Curtiss", "Spad"}
> >
> > <Condition
> > FunctionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:and">
> >
> > <Apply xsi:type="AtLeastMemberOf"
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-at-least-one-
> > member-of">
> >
> > <Apply
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-bag">
> >
> > <AttributeValue
> >
> DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string";>Curtiss</Attribut
> eV
> > alue>
> >
> > <AttributeValue
> >
> DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string";>Spad</Attribute
> Valu
> > e>
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > <AttributeDesignator AttributeId="http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-
> 03/claims/OrganizationID"
> > DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; />
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > (etc...)
> >
> > </Condition>
> >
> > The two policies (TAA-1.1 and TAA-1.2) are similar, with the exception
> > of the hard-coded values of the string bags used by the
> > AtLeastMemberOf function. The idea is to have only one policy that
> > does not contain these hard-coded values. Instead we have a construct
> that would substitute the appropriate values. In the example above:
> {"Curtiss", "Packard"} for TAA-1.1, {"Curtiss", "Spad"} for TAA-1.2.
> >
> > My initial proposal was to using the element <AttributeValue> without
> > qualifying its contents values, but by specifying a ParameterId attribute,
> that would allow to substitute the appropriate values:
> >
> > <Condition
> > FunctionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:and">
> >
> > <Apply xsi:type="AtLeastMemberOf"
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-at-least-one-
> > member-of">
> >
> > <Apply
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-bag">
> >
> > <AttributeValue ParameterId="organizations"
> > DataType=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string/>
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > <AttributeDesignator AttributeId="http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-
> 03/claims/OrganizationID"
> > DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; />
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > (etc...)
> >
> > </Condition>
> >
> > I understand that instead, and in order to achieving the same effect,
> > Erik's proposal is to replace the <AttributeValue ParameterId=...>
> > construct with the more standard <AttributeDesignator> construct, given
> something like:
> >
> > <Condition
> > FunctionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:and">
> >
> > <Apply xsi:type="AtLeastMemberOf"
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-at-least-one-
> > member-of">
> >
> > <Apply
> > functionId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:string-bag">
> >
> > <AttributeDesignator CategoryId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:policy:"
> AttributeId="organizations"
> > DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; />
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > <AttributeDesignator AttributeId="http://schemas.tscp.org/2012-
> 03/claims/OrganizationID"
> > DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; />
> >
> > </Apply>
> >
> > (etc...)
> >
> > </Condition>
> >
> > If my interpretation is correct (at least on the intent, not on exact
> > syntax; Erik, I apologize if I totally missed your point), then some questions
> arise:
> >
> > A.1) How would the authorization engine know where to go and fetch the
> > desired values (i.e. from the TAA-1.1 template-data or the TAA-1.2
> template-data)?
> >
> > A.2) The <AttributeDesignator> construct was, so far, meant to
> > retrieve attributes values from (Subject, Resource, Environment)
> > attributes. Are we introducing the possibility for the same construct
> > to also retrieve attribute values from (policy-template) attributes? If so we
> need to make it explicit on the specification, I would think.
> >
> > B) Can the two use-cases called out at the beginning of
> > [https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xacml/Policy%20Template%20Profile] be
> supported by <AttributeDesignator>?
> >
> > I assumed that use-case 1 requires a static reduction, that happens
> > far before any actual authorization decision; hence
> > <AttributeDesignator> cannot be used for the purpose of
> > parameterization. If my assumption is correct, then we need a different
> mechanism to support use-case 1, which is damageable. My proposal was to
> find a single syntax that would equally support both use-cases.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jean-Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Rissanen [mailto:erik@axiomatics.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 08:32
> > To: Steven Legg
> > Cc: Jean-Paul Buu-Sao; Danny Thorpe; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> > <mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject: Re: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > I am arguing against the whole concept of a template, thus there is no
> Policy Template Engine in my proposal.
> >
> > What I am trying to say is that instead of adding a Policy Template
> > Engine to the PDP before the policy is evaluated by the XACML engine, you
> can just use a regular XACML policy in the XACML engine.
> >
> > You can solve the same use case this way. Say that you want a template
> which has a parameter called "foo"
> > and then a Policy Template Engine which substitutes "foo" with values
> > before the XACML engine. Instead you can have a regular XACML policy
> > with attribute designator "foo" and a PIP which provides the value which
> would have been provided by the policy template engine.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > On 2012-10-09 02:46, Steven Legg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Erik,
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Sorry, I read too much into what you were saying. Please disregard my
> >
> >> previous response.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On 8/10/2012 5:38 PM, Erik Rissanen wrote:
> >
> >>> Steven,
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Yes, just replace all parameters with attribute designators.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> An issue with using attribute designators as parameters is that there
> >
> >> is ambiguity for the Policy Template Engine to resolve. Some
> >> attribute
> >
> >> designators in the policy template are "real" and are preserved as
> >> is,
> >
> >> and the other attribute designators are actually parameters that need
> >
> >> to be replaced by a bag of attribute values from the policy template
> >
> >> data.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Your example only has one parameter as a designator and that
> >
> >> designator uses the same URI for the Category and AttributeId. Were
> >
> >> you intending that equivalence as a way of distinguishing an
> >> attribute
> >
> >> designator that is actually a parameter, or is it just because you
> >> had
> >
> >> to put something in the Category ? A Policy Template Engine could
> >
> >> always look in the policy template data to work out which designators
> >
> >> are really parameters, but I think it would be better if it were
> >> clear
> >
> >> from the designator. I suggest using a special category URI just for
> >
> >> parameters.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> The attribute designators that are actually parameters should always
> >
> >> use MustBePresent="true" so that an implementation that blindly
> >
> >> evaluates a policy template as a normal policy will appropriately
> >
> >> return an indeterminate decision.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> It seems we have three proposals for representating parameters in
> >
> >> policy
> >
> >> templates:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> (1) Just use attribute designators. This means that targets can't
> >> have
> >
> >> parameters, but on-permit-apply-second can be used to get the same
> >
> >> effect.
> >
> >> Policy template data writers can determine whether a parameter is
> >
> >> single-valued or multi-valued by seeing whether the corresponding
> >
> >> attribute designator is wrapped in type-one-and-only.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> (2) <ValueParameter> and <BagParameter> elements. Targets can have
> >
> >> value parameters, but not bag parameters, though
> >
> >> on-permit-apply-second can be used to get the same effect. It's
> >
> >> obvious to policy template data writers what the parameters are and
> >
> >> whether a parameter is single-valued or multi-valued.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> (3) ParameterId XML attribute on <AttributeValue> elements. It's
> >
> >> reasonably obvious to policy template data writers what the
> >> parameters
> >
> >> are. An additional XML attribute to indicate whether the parameter is
> >
> >> single-valued or multi-valued would make this solution cleaner.
> >
> >> Targets can have value parameters. Targets could also have bag
> >
> >> parameters provided the target is transformed by the Policy Template
> >
> >> Engine. Alternatively, bag parameters in targets could be disallowed
> >
> >> because on-permit-apply-second can be used to get the same effect.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I don't see a compelling need for transformations of conditions.
> >
> >> Proposals
> >
> >> (1) and (2) don't lend themselves to transformations, but it could be
> >
> >> done.
> >
> >> The difference in the proposals is mostly around the syntax for
> >
> >> representing parameters.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Regards,
> >
> >> Steven
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> I don't understand why you need to evaluate the template twice. I
> >
> >>> tried to understand it from the wiki, but to me it all looks like
> >
> >>> simple value substitution, which can handled better with attribute
> >
> >>> designators.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Best regards,
> >
> >>> Erik
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> On 2012-10-08 04:32, Steven Legg wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Erik,
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> On 5/10/2012 6:03 PM, Erik Rissanen wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Jean-Paul,
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> I put in one such example on the wiki page. Search for
> >
> >>>>> "on-permit-apply-second" and you will find it.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> This strategy only works if there is one policy template data for
> >
> >>>> the policy template. In general, there may be many policy template
> >
> >>>> data per policy template. The example in the wiki has two: TAA-1.1 and
> TAA-1.2.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Although you didn't do it, I assume you meant to replace the
> >
> >>>> parameters in the condition with attribute designators as well,
> >
> >>>> i.e., designators for "organizations", "nationals" and "workEfforts".
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> The policy needs to be evaluated twice. The first time the
> >>>> attribute
> >
> >>>> designator for PolicyIdOnResource needs to return
> >
> >>>> "urn:curtiss:ba:taa:taa-1.1", the designator for "organizations"
> >
> >>>> needs to return the bag of { "Curtiss", "Packard" }, the designator
> >
> >>>> for "nationals" needs to return the bag of { "US", "GB" }, and
> >
> >>>> "workEfforts" needs to return { "DetailedDesign", "Simulation" }.
> >
> >>>> The second time, PolicyIdOnResource needs to return
> >
> >>>> "urn:curtiss:ba:taa:taa-1.2", "organizations" needs to return {
> >
> >>>> "Curtiss", "Spad" }, "nationals" needs to return { "US", "FR" } and
> >
> >>>> "workEfforts"
> >
> >>>> needs to return { "Integration", "Simulation" }.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Of course, we don't currently have a way to cause a policy to be
> >
> >>>> evaluated multiple times with the attribute designators returning
> >
> >>>> different bags each time. For one thing, the result of an attribute
> >
> >>>> designator is fixed for the entire duration of the processing of an
> >
> >>>> authorization request. The expansion of the policy template into a
> >
> >>>> policy template instance for each policy template data achieves the
> >
> >>>> same end.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> The use of on-permit-apply-second is a good idea for removing the
> >
> >>>> need for any special processing of parameters in targets.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Regards,
> >
> >>>> Steven
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >
> >>>>> Erik
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> On 2012-10-04 23:01, Jean-Paul Buu-Sao wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Greetings,
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Apologies for missing the call today, as I was in a TSCP event,
> >
> >>>>>> together with Gerry and David of Axiomatics.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> I have been much interested in the last findings, and agree that
> >
> >>>>>> if the "template" property that we are (all, I think) looking for
> >
> >>>>>> could be achieved with standard the <AttributeDesignator>
> >
> >>>>>> construct, rather than introducing new concepts, then this would
> >
> >>>>>> be for the better.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> May I suggest that, in order to verify this assertion (so to
> >
> >>>>>> speak), some folks, such as Erik or Danny, would be kind enough
> >>>>>> to
> >
> >>>>>> propose an alternate proposal to the sample found on our Wiki
> >
> >>>>>> (https://wiki.oasis-
> open.org/xacml/Policy%20Template%20Profile%20Examples)?
> >
> >>>>>> By the way, as a word of
> >
> >>>>>> caution, please disregard the in-correctness of the XCAML 3.0 of
> >
> >>>>>> section 1. of the example (yes the devil is in the details, and
> >
> >>>>>> David shown me how this example could be made compliant).
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Jean-Paul
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> *From:*xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> >>>>>> [mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org]> *On Behalf Of *Danny
> >>>>>> Thorpe
> >
> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 20:11
> >
> >>>>>> *To:* Erik Rissanen; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> When the original proposal for policy templates was brought
> >
> >>>>>> forward, I noted that simply replacing a single AttributeValue
> >
> >>>>>> element with a list of values from the policy template
> >>>>>> <Parameter>
> >
> >>>>>> would fail in <Match> expressions, since <Match> is very explicit
> >
> >>>>>> about one value, one designator/selector. I offered a transform
> >
> >>>>>> to help produce valid match expressions.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> AttributeDesignator does provide similar
> >
> >>>>>> "insert-multiple-values-here" operations to the policy template
> >
> >>>>>> substitution behavior, but I believe the suggestion of policy
> >
> >>>>>> parameterization came up because of situations in which
> >
> >>>>>> AttributeDesignator cannot be used. Comparing an attribute
> >
> >>>>>> against a static list of test values (specific to an organization
> >
> >>>>>> or location and applied to a generic policy), for example, is a
> >
> >>>>>> many-to-many comparison, but cannot be expressed in a <Match>
> >
> >>>>>> element.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> As we discussed on the TC call today, we're finding more
> >
> >>>>>> difficulties with parameter substitution the deeper we dig.
> >>>>>> Steven
> >
> >>>>>> Legg noted in an earlier email that some Xacml functions that
> >>>>>> take
> >
> >>>>>> single <AttributeValue> won't work if multiple values are dropped
> >
> >>>>>> in to replace the <AttributeValue>. This means some sort of
> >
> >>>>>> expression transform will be necessary in condition expressions
> >>>>>> as
> >
> >>>>>> well to move policy templates forward.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> In light of these increasing complexities and challenges, I'm
> >
> >>>>>> beginning to agree with you that perhaps the policy template use
> >
> >>>>>> case can better be addressed using the existing
> >
> >>>>>> <AttributeDesignator>.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> This would mean:
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> 1.Giving up parameterization behavior in <Match> expressions and
> >
> >>>>>> moving that logic into conditions using <AttributeDesignator> to
> >
> >>>>>> reference an attribute ID representing the parameterization data.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> 2.Moving parameterization data from a static policy generator
> >>>>>> step
> >
> >>>>>> to a PIP to fill <AttributeDesignator> references to a particular
> >
> >>>>>> attribute ID with parameterization data in the PDP at auth
> >>>>>> request
> >
> >>>>>> evaluation time.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Using <AttributeDesignator> instead of policy templates does
> >
> >>>>>> impact the use case quite a bit because populating PIP data is
> >>>>>> not
> >
> >>>>>> part of the Xacml spec. Policies could be shared between
> >
> >>>>>> organizations per the use case, but how the parameterization data
> >
> >>>>>> is applied to those policies would become a vendor-specific
> >
> >>>>>> implementation detail.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> I can see the attraction of parameterizing policies to allow
> >
> >>>>>> up-front synthesis of specific policies, but as we say "the devil
> >
> >>>>>> is in the details." The details are winning. :/
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> -Danny
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> *Danny Thorpe *
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Authorization Architect
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Dell | Identity & Access Management, Quest Software
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Quest Software is not part of Dell.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> *From:*xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> >>>>>> <mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >>>>>> [mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org]>
> >
> >>>>>> <mailto:[mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org]> *On Behalf Of *Erik
> >
> >>>>>> Rissanen
> >
> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:42 AM
> >
> >>>>>> *To:* xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >>>>>> <mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [xacml] Updated policy template wiki
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> All,
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> I still fail to see why this is useful.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> If you take a policy template, and replace each <Parameter> with
> >
> >>>>>> an appropriate <AttributeDesignator>, then you get a regular
> >>>>>> XACML
> >
> >>>>>> policy, and the PEP/PDP can "fill in"
> >
> >>>>>> the "template" at runtime using normal XACML attributes.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Why do we need a new standard? In particular I would be opposed
> >>>>>> to
> >
> >>>>>> "implementation option C", that is a PDP would construct the
> >
> >>>>>> policy from the template at runtime.
> >
> >>>>>> That's lots of heavy machinery for no gain.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >
> >>>>>> Erik
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> On 2012-09-20 20:25, Danny Thorpe wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> I've updated the policy template wiki
> >
> >>>>>> (https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xacml/Policy%20Template%20Profile)
> >
> >>>>>> with text about required Match expression rewriting in
> >
> >>>>>> parameter substitution and optional use of
> >
> >>>>>> AttributeDesignators and AttributeSelectors in Parameter data
> >
> >>>>>> in dynamic policy template reduction
> >
> >>>>>> implementations.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> -Danny
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> *Danny Thorpe *
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> Product Architect | | *Quest Software*- /Now including the
> >
> >>>>>> people and products of BiTKOO/ |
> >
> >>>>>>www.quest.com <http://www.quest.com>
> <http://www.quest.com>
> >
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>
> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]