xacml — archive

RE: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1

From: Daniel Engovatov <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:55:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















xacml message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1




From: "Daniel Engovatov" <[email protected]>
To: "Seth Proctor" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:59:14 -0700







>I think this captures the discussion thus far (mod some details about
>what the actual Request format should look like). Comments?

Overall - rather close.  I guess I want to see the next iteration of
Anne's
Proposal before I make further suggestions.

In the example, I was thinking the "ancestors" (Adding "resource-" in
the name seems redundant - it is in the resource: namespace) should
normally include the resource-id: resource is its own ancestor.  That
simplifies the most typical rule target: apply a rule to a resource and
all its dependants. 

We are not trying to model resource structure.  I think that our only
goal would be to define a useful scheme to specify applicable rules.

We definitely could reserve some useful names for the typical
hierarchical schemes, such as "resource-parents", but I would not think
they should be mandatory to define.

Daniel.






Follow-Ups:

Re: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1
From: seth proctor <[email protected]>








[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]