Max Voskob wrote:
>Hi all!
>
>I'm not a member of your TC, but still would like to ask you to keep RegRep
>free from patents.
>
Very reasonable feedback and suggestion Max. I agree with those that
wish to keep ebXML Registry totally unencumbered by patents.
BTW why are you not a member of this TC ;-) Our doors are open.
>Make the XACML optional or do not use it at all for now.
>Good things take time. It's not known yet if XACML will be popular or not
>and rushing it thru may do more harm than good.
>
I am not convinced that we need to expose XACML at all in the
specification.
However, the one thing I am convinced of is that we *MUST* support
custom Access Control POlicy feature in V3 and that it can be done on a
RF basis.
>
>Cheers,
>Max
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Damodaran, Suresh" <>
>To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <>
>Cc: "'Farrukh Najmi'" <>; "Breininger Kathryn R"
><>; "Matthew MacKenzie"
><>; <>
>Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:04 AM
>Subject: RE: [regrep] XACML and Access Control Policy
>
>
>
>
>>Yes, [2] looked easier on the TC, but IBM's[1] looked more problematic.
>>In any case, wouldn't you agree, as good citizens of the spec developer
>>world,
>>we do need to worry about the pains the implementers would go through as
>>well.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>-Suresh
>>Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet)
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:]
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:46 PM
>>To: Damodaran, Suresh
>>Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi'; Breininger Kathryn R; Matthew MacKenzie;
>>
>>Subject: Re: [regrep] XACML and Access Control Policy
>>
>>
>>>From [2]:
>>
>><Excerpt>
>>"Upon approval by the OASIS Board of Directors of the Specification,
>>ContentGuard is willing to offer nonexclusive licenses to the patents to
>>persons wishing to pursue compliant implementations of the
>>Specification. These licenses will be provided under reasonable and
>>non-discriminatory terms and conditions, in accordance with
>>ContentGuard's then current licensing practices."
>></Excerpt>
>>
>>Based on this, it appears to me that this binds the implementors of the
>>specification, not the developers of the specification itself.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>"Damodaran, Suresh" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here is a thought that we may need to confront sooner or later.
>>>XACML is not free of IP claims [1,2]. Since we don't want reg-rep v3.0
>>>to be encumbered by IP claims, one option we have is the following:
>>>
>>>1. Make a meta model and then bind XACML to it. This should leave the
>>>
>>>
>>option
>>
>>
>>>of making other
>>>bindings as well. I don't claim I know exactly how to do this as yet,
>>>but that is something we would need to figure out together.
>>>
>>>The second option is to forget about the metamodel and let the burden
>>>
>>>
>fall
>
>
>>>on
>>>the implementers.
>>>
>>>Any other thoughts or other options?
>>>
>>>In any case, it looks prudent to cleanly identify and compartmentalize
>>>the spec portions that deal with XACML and Custom Access Control.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>-Suresh
>>>Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet)
>>>[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml
>>>[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/cg_ipr_statement.shtml
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 8:03 PM
>>>To: Breininger, Kathryn R
>>>Cc: Matthew MacKenzie; Damodaran, Suresh;
>>>Subject: Re: [regrep] XACML and Access Control Policy
>>>
>>>I believe that proposed changes for custom ACP are largely orthogonal to
>>>the the set of changes proposed to be reviewed this Thursday. The only
>>>overlap in in the security chapters of RS and RIM where the changes for
>>>2.33 were fairly minor. We could defer these chapters review until we
>>>finish the Custom ACP task.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Regards,
>>>Farrukh
>>>
>>>Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like this should be the first agenda item. Do you anticipate
>>>>
>>>>
>>other
>>
>>
>>>sections of the specs changing as a result? If the second agenda item
>>>
>>>
>is
>
>
>>>reviewing the current changes, are there sections that will be affected
>>>
>>>
>by
>
>
>>>this proposal that we should skip in our spec review?
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Monday, Jan 6, 2003, at 17:03 America/Vancouver, Farrukh Najmi
>>>>
>>>>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Suresh,
>>>>>
>>>>>XACML based custom access control policy was planned for V3 and is in
>>>>>fact the only task that was planned for V3 that we have not addressed
>>>>>for V3. The task was dropped for two reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>>-XACML was a moving target
>>>>>
>>>>>-We had no one signed up for the task
>>>>>
>>>>>Given that XACML is now a month away from becoming the next OASIS
>>>>>approved standard ( I believe it will get approved) and given that you
>>>>>are offering to take ownership of the, I completely agree with your
>>>>>suggestion that we should do it for V3.
>>>>>
>>>>>My experience with several strategic ebXML Registry pilots using the
>>>>>ebxmlrr project has shown that this is a *MUST* feature for V3. In
>>>>>fact the ebxmlrr project has been implementing XACML based custom ACP
>>>>>as a implementation specific feature already. The experience further
>>>>>suggests that XACML is ready for building our specs on top of and that
>>>>>we *SHOULD* do custom ACP for V3 based on XACML.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe we could accommodate the increase in scope with about 1
>>>>>month slip to our V3 schedule. I think that the benefit of having this
>>>>>strategic feature far outweighs the cost of the delay to V3 schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would be very willing to help you with this task. Maybe Sanjay could
>>>>>help as well (Sanjay?) and we could get our security sub-team charged
>>>>>up for V3.
>>>>>
>>>>>Kathryn, I propose we add this issue to this week's TC con-call.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Farrukh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It would be great to have XACML based custom access control policy
>>>>>>for V3. Is this something we are considering for V3?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I may even volunteer sometime:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Suresh
>>>>>>Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>>
>>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
