I
agree with John. In fact, in terms of the OASIS process, the appropriate way to
encourage implementation and use is to take a spec to Committee Specification. I
don't see any reason not to move some consensus of the functionality forward to
CSD or CS. Given that the profile basically just defines the semantics of some
identifiers, I don't think it would be a great problem if version 2.0 ended up
being radically different from version 1.0 based on real world experimentation
with 1.0.
If
anybody has some additional data based on using these kinds of constructs in the
real world, by all means tell us about it and we can incorporate what you have
learned. Absent that, we need to encourage people to try this stuff and tell us
what is wrong or missing. I don't think we should wait until we understand the
problem perfectly to propose constructs which may be immediately useful to some
parties and encourage experimentation by others.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Tolbert, John W
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30,
2011 6:39 PM
To: Doron Grinstein; Tyson, Paul H;
Subject: RE: [xacml] Groups - IPC WD-06
uploaded
I
would still like to advance a corrected version of WD-06 to at least committee
draft status for the following reasons:
·
I
believe the underlying data model is sound. We have captured a
sufficient number of intellectual property concepts that can be expressed as
XACML attributes and used for access control and auditing purposes. We
know that others are already using the existing CD version successfully.
I intend to make use of the attributes as currently defined in WD-06.
Implementers are free to use the entire set of attributes or a subset of these
attributes as their business requirements dictate. Moreover,
implementers may choose to extend these attributes for their own
purposes. This is similar to how profiles of SAML, particularly the web
SSO profile, are employed today: architects design identity federation
relationships based on agreements, which are in turn instantiated via
attributes specified in the SAML SSO profile. “Federated connection”
attribute lists often vary from connection to connection, depending on
business requirements. However, the web SSO profile serves as a
framework upon which individual solutions can be
constructed.
·
Moving
the status forward will encourage vendor and user adoption of the
profile. There is a ubiquitous need across the private and public
sectors for fine-grained access controls for intellectual property in
electronic form. This profile provides an extensible framework that can
help guide deployments. An upgraded status doesn’t imply that the
profile contains “best practices” for building an IP authorization
system. In fact, we have a strong disclaimer that implementers should
consult with their own legal experts to ensure that it meets their business
and legal requirements. The purpose of this profile is to identify and
codify a standard set of attributes. The examples contained in WD-06 are
approximations of real-world use cases.
·
This
profile, like the core and all other standards, can be modified as necessary
in the future to meet evolving requirements. Additional
information discovered from deployments can be considered and incorporated to
strengthen this profile as such situations occur. We would welcome
additional input.
·
As
we discussed in the F2F, I would like to use the IPC profile and use case for
the XACML RSA interop. IP protection is a very popular topic in a lot of
venues right now, and showing that XACML can handle this important use case in
that setting would be beneficial in generating additional support for
XACML.
We
can discuss this further on the call tomorrow.
Thanks,
John
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Doron Grinstein
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:47
AM
To: Tyson, Paul H;
Subject:
RE: [xacml] Groups - IPC WD-06 uploaded
I
appreciate John Tolbert’s effort on the IPC profile but I also agree with Paul
Tyson that perhaps we should put this profile on hold. We are working with a
set of customers that have IPC requirements and the result of that effort will
yield our ability to more effectively provide feedback on the proposal
profile. I am not suggesting starting from scratch. John has done a lot of
good work. I am suggesting we wait until there’s more collective knowledge and
experience and then take John’s work as the starting point and hopefully
ratify the proposal quickly, perhaps in the second quarter of CY2012. My 2
cents…
Doron
Grinstein ¦
CEO
¦
BiTKOO
¦
818-985-4700
Ext. 31 ¦www.bitkoo.com
Schedule
a meeting with me
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Tyson, Paul H
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:39
AM
To:
Subject: RE: [xacml]
Groups - IPC WD-06 uploaded
My
overall satisfaction with this spec has not risen over the last several
working drafts, even though some technical details have been improved and
clarified.
I
remain deeply suspicious about the utility of the attributes and attribute
values defined herein, except for ip-owner, ip-agreement, and
organizational-affiliation. I don’t think there is a broad enough base
of experience with real-world, complete XACML systems using non-trivial IPC
policy sets. I do not think this spec will enable and encourage such
implementations. It is far from clear what the best practices are in
this area, but by publishing this spec we would be claiming to have discovered
and standardized some features of “best practices”. I’m not ready to do
that.
Would
the Boeing reps consider putting this profile on hold for several months while
they develop a production-track XACML system that exercises all the essential
features? (Bell has already implemented IPC policies using attributes
that correspond to ip-owner, ip-agreement, and organizational-affiliation,
which is why I am less suspicious of those.)
If
the TC wants to promote the profile substantially as it is, I would like my
name to be removed from the editors list. There are also several
technical glitches in the examples, such as misspelled attribute ids, and
attribute ids that were turned into attribute values by the latest WD.
Section 3 should list all the identifiers defined by the profile, including
attribute ids, URI-valued attribute values, and obligation
ids.
Regards,
--Paul
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of John Tolbert
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November, 2011
20:18
To:
Subject:
[xacml] Groups - IPC WD-06 uploaded
Submitter's message
Revised WD-06, with anyURI
data type for agreement-type and affiliation-type attributes. Examples
updated.
-- Mr. John Tolbert
Document
Name: IPC
WD-06
Description
Working
draft 6
Download
Latest Revision
Public
Download Link
Submitter: Mr. John
Tolbert
Group: OASIS
eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC
Folder:
Specifications and Working Drafts
Date
submitted: 2011-11-29 18:17:39
Revision:
1
