Sorry for my late response as well. I figure I better send my thoughts
on V2.0 security features, however half baked they may be.
Must Have Features
---------------------
-Clarify signing requirements and use of digital signatures so it is
unambiguous and easy to understand.
-Allow Custom Access Control Policy management (decide if object level
or method level is needed)
Nice To Have Features
------------------------
-Allow User administration (How to register a User)
Deliverables
------------
-Re-written security sections of RIM and RS for ease of use and ease of
implementation
-ACL definition in RIM
-Changes to RS on how to use ObjectManager to submit ACL and possibly
User objects. Existing SubmitObjectsRequest may suffice.
-Update XML Schema for ACL etc.
Milestones
-----------
Ideally:
Have initial proposal for sub-team in 1 week
Have initial proposal for TC in 2 weeks
"Patil, Sanjay" wrote:
> Suresh, good document. A few comments that I had are dispersed inthe
> attached document in red. One question I have to the team is - going
> ahead, should we identify terminology for each of the security concern
> in addition to the verbal description. In the attached document, I
> have used terms from RFC 2828 for the security concerns under section
> 3.1 As far as priorities of the different security concerns, I think
> theaccess control related concerns take a higher priority over
> theintegrity related concerns. At least for private registries,
> integrityrisk is generally not an issue. However access control is
> mostlyrequired. For public registries, a weak access control can beone
> of the fundamental causes compromising the integrity of the
> content. Sorry for the delay in responding.thanks,
> Sanjay Patil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IONA
> Total Business Integration (TM)
> Phone: 408 350 9619
> http://www.iona.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damodaran, Suresh
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: '';
> ''; 'Michael Joya'; ''
> Subject: RE: ebXML Security subteam - proposal v0.11
> Importance: High
>
> Team,Here is the updated proposal. I hope there is enough
> basisin this document for us to make decisions on what is
> absolutely necessaryfor V2. Please be ready to fill in Table
> 2 by next meeting - Thursday 5-6PM Eastern
> (tentative).Please let me know earlier than Thursday if you
> think there is not enough info to fill these tables earlier
> - especially, if you cannot make it to the
> meeting. Regards,-SureshPS: If you are not already in
> regrep-security mailing list, please become one.
>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
