xacml — archive

[Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>]

 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: seth proctor <Seth.Proctor@Sun.COM>
To: Daniel Engovatov <dengovatov@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:37:20 -0400







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

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I also want to see her text...I just 
wanted to get our thoughts thus far into one place :)

> 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. 

Oh. That sounds ok. Sorry I missed that detail. As for the name, I was 
just going with the convention we have now (resource-id, 
resource-location, etc.), but that's not a big deal.

> 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.

Agreed. We're providing a way to handle resource structure, but we're 
not defining what that structure looks like.

> 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.

That's fine by me. There has been some discussion about the attributes 
we might define, but I don't think we need to nail that down right away.

Thanks!


seth









References:

RE: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1
From: "Daniel Engovatov" <dengovatov@bea.com>






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

--

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