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: Re: [xacml] minutes of the XACML TC meeting of May 29, 2003






I have a question on the decision about dropping item G in the last call. I
think that we should spend more time to discuss about this item because
there had been no sufficient discussions on the list. (I noticed that there
is a positive comment from Anne) Since the use case I wrote has an
indexable parameter (purpose) which is independent of subject, resource,
and action, it is reasonable to allow this extension if it keeps backward
compatible.

Michiharu


                                                                       
                      "Steve Crocker"                                  
                      <steve.crocker@pss-s        To:       <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
                      ystems.com>                 cc:                  
                                                  Subject:  [xacml] minutes of the XACML TC meeting of May 29, 2003
                      2003/05/30 01:45                                 
                                                                       
                                                                       






Minutes for the XACML TC meeting of May 29, 2003



Members Present:



CarlisleAdams,

Simon Godik,

Anne Anderson,

Anthony Nadalin,

Steve Crocker -- scribe,

Bill Parducci,

Hal Lockhart,

Steve Anderson,

Frank Siebenlist.





Carlisletook role and quorum was reached.



A motion to approve the TC meetings' minutes from 5/1/03and 5/15/03

was moved and approved.



Anne made a motion to approve RBAC as an official work item, which was

seconded, and no objections were made.� Anne will put the RBAC

proposal in an official OASIS format.



The June 9 meeting will be focused on discussing the RBAC profile with

three people from NIST.� All are invited.� The subcommittee meeting

minutes will go to the general mailing list.� Please put XACML and

RBAC in the subject header to allow automatic mail filtering.� The

June 9 meeting will give a better indidation of how much work and how

many meetings the RBAC work will require.� Chances of being able to

use the teleconference line for RBAC work is high.



Carlislestepped through the items on today's adjenda:



Item:� 1.1 work items:



Progress on 1.1 errata list is minimal.� Simon had trouble with

getting the XACML spec, errata list document from web site.� Aim is to

get it to a complete and correct reflection of the state of the spec.

Anne has one new item to add to the list.� At the end of the meeting,

it was agreed to target the errata list in next week's working group

meeting.



Items A-H from the focus group meeting's items



�� A: fully specified hierarchical resources-- needs more issues resolved



�� B: adding ID attribute--can probably be dropped, no champion willing

����� to save it.

����� A motion was made to drop item B from 1.1, and seconded.� no
objections.

����� Item B is dropped.



�� C: deterministic algorithm for combining obligations--



������� AA: Seth Proctor wants to submit proposal, not for

����� ����� obligation, but for a deterministic algorithm (eval

����� ����� order) for evaluation.� e.g.: algorithm is not free to

����� ����� skip unavailable policies.� This would be a new XACML

����� ����� standardized combining algorithm.



������� Hal: feels opposite, use cases are rare where order of

����� ����� evaluation matters.� Those cases where order of eval

����� ����� effects obligations presented are rare.



������� Some discussion on non-deterministic algorithms allow

������� evaluation optimization.



������� CA:� may not be manditory to implement, but it would be

������� standardized.



������� AA: will make proposal for inclusion in 1.1



������� Motion was made to drop item C (combining obligations):

������� moved, seconded, no objections.� Item C is dropped.





��� D:� Obligations in rule elements:



������� Allows the option to attach obligations to rules rather

������� than just policies.



������� AA: wants to delay to see details of what will go into

����������� the spec before approval.



��� E: Condition References



������������� AA: Michiharu is ok with dropping this if references

������������� to rules are included.� They can give the same effect.

������������� (see item H)



��� H:� References to Rules: proposal is mature are ready for vote:



������� SG: how is equal to condition reference



������� AA: If Michihara's proposal is for condition

����� ����� references only from the top level condition element

����� ����� in a rule, A rule reference could accomplish the same

����� ����� effect by wrapping the condition in a rule whose

����� ����� target is 'any' and refering to that rule.



������� Confusion reigns, we'll have to get Michinvolved for

����� ����� clarification, and to look at it again.� Reference is

����� ����� allowed to top level condition elements.



��� F:� properties for new combining algorithms:



������� AA: thinks this is too open ended, need a use case

����������� Michiharu had a use case for a privacy policy.



������� CA: need to see Michiharu's response to AA, so it stays

������� on the list for next call.�� Michihara on the call would

������� be very helpful



��� G:� Put environment in target element



��������� Michiharu is the source

��������� AA: resonable

��������� HL: generally opposed but if it's optional, doesn't affect

������������� those who don't need it,

��������� AA: use case: applicability based on time of day, policies that

������������� apply only during certain hours.

��������� HL: time (being continuous) is not a great candidate for discrete

������������� indexing.

��������� HL, CA: generally don't like it if it can be misused or

������������� abbused.

������� ��CA: will this be backward compatible to 1.0

��������� SG: wants list of attributes as indexing hints rather than

������������� extending the target.

��������� HL: suggests dropping for 1.1, maybe consider for 2.0, no

������������� objections.

��������� Motion to drop this proposal from consideration for 1.1

������������� was moved, 2nd no objections.� Item G dropped.





Motion to adjorn, seconded, no objections.



Upcoming events:

������� Next week's focus group will discuss references to rules and

������� the errata list.



������� RBAC with NIST folks on June 9.



������� Next full group meeting, June 11.





A request was made for a sanity check for the proposed 1.1 time frame.



You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgroup.php

#### minutes_5_29_03.txt has been removed from this note on June 05 2003 by
Michiharu Kudoh



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