AW: [xacml] Standardization Status of Documents

Hi Martin, Hal,

 

based on the use cases I am dealing with, I would name the following profiles being the most active/important… ones in descending order:

1.    
REST                        

2.    
JSON                        

3.    
RBAC  

4.    
SAML

Followed with some gap by:

·        
Hierarchical Resource      

·        
Multiple Decision         

              

Another thought on XACML Profiles: Quite some time ago I read Hal`s paper on the relation of OAuth2 and XACML. Do you know of people using XACML
 within a OAuth ecosystem? Did the TC ever discuss if an OAUTH2 profile of XACML (or vice versa) makes sense? Here at Siemens OAuth based IAM solutions are rapidly spreading and some guidance how fine grained authorization with XACML can be married with token
 based authentication à la OAuth might help to solve use cases and also help XACML’s popularity/usage in practice.  

 

BR Jan

 

Siemens AG

Corporate Technology

CT RDA ITS SEA-DE

Otto-Hahn-Ring 6

81739 Muenchen, Germany 

Tel.: +49 89 636-633675

Fax: +49 89 636-48000

Mobile: +49 173 3157961

mailto:

www.siemens.com/ingenuityforlife

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland
 Busch, Lisa Davis, Klaus Helmrich, Janina Kugel, Siegfried Russwurm, Ralf P. Thomas; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

 

 

 

 

Von:  [mailto:]
Im Auftrag von Martin Smith

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 23:15

An: Hal Lockhart

Cc: XACML TC

Betreff: Re: [xacml] Standardization Status of Documents

 

Hal-- I think your message below is what you mentioned in last call's discussion of which profiles we might want to submit for the IDESG Standards Registry. 

 

I'll put together a draft IDESG Nomination form bundling these together (but separately from the core v3 spec draft nomination I posted.) 

 

Recall that (at least according to Jamie, who is very familiar with the IDESG processes) OASIS Committee Specs should be eligible for the IDESG Standards Registry. But of course it can't hurt to have a Profile on track to OASIS Standard.
  

 

And I do agree that it would be good to affirm implementations for JSON and REST (and SAML..?) One of the IDESG eval points is "interoperability" and being able to say XACML works with JSON and REST would be a talking point on that issue. 

 

So, are you thinking we should all the Profiles below in the nomination form for IDESG?  If not, can anyone suggest a "most relevant/important/active" subset?

 

MAP

IPC

EC-US

XSPA

SAML

Signature

DLP/NAC

Hierarchical Resource       

Multiple Decision          

REST                         

JSON                         

Additional Combining Algs.   

Privacy                    

RBAC                       

 

Also another request for help. Given the available space on the Nomination Form and the limited review bandwidth available to the IDESG SCC, it would be GREAT to have 1-line bullets expressing the relevance/importance/target-use-case of
 each of the Profiles we include. (I can try to extract this myself from the Profile introductions, but I expect the authors of each Profile could summarize theirs better.) 

 

Thanks,

 

Martin

 

 

 

 

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Hal Lockhart <> wrote:

The following documents have reached OASIS Standard.

 

XACML Core

MAP

IPC

EC-US

XSPA

 

The TC does not plan to progress the following document past Committee Specification at the current time.

 

Administration & Delegation

 

The following documents have reached CS, but not yet received any Statements of Use.

 

SAML

Signature

DLP/NAC

 

I found SoU's against the following documents.

 

Hierarchical Resource         Axiomatics

Multiple Decision             Axiomatics

REST                          Axiomatics, EMC

JSON                          Axiomatics

Additional Combining Algs.    Axiomatics, EMC

Privacy                       ViewDS

RBAC                          ViewDS

 

Does anyone have any corrections or additions to the above?

 

Can we get some more SOU’s for REST & JSON? I believe these are the ones that people want to use. (Or are using.)

 

Hal

 

 

-- 

Martin F Smith, Principal

BFC Consulting, LLC

McLean, Va 22102

703 506-0159

703 389-3224 mobile