You
should change all the URNs and XML to a monospaced font like
courier.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyson, Paul H
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December
01, 2011 12:34 PM
To: Hal Lockhart; Tolbert, John W; Doron
Grinstein;
Subject: RE: [xacml] Groups -
IPC WD-06 uploaded
Yes,
it would help to get as much feedback and experience as possible, and the CSD
public review stage is the way to do this. After corrections are made, I
suggest an extended review period (at least 60 days) and an expansive list of
external stakeholders to notify. This should
include:
The
OASIS LegalXML member section
The
other organizations/companies that John says are implementing the
CD.
The
Digital Policy Management (DPM) interest group (I think John has contact
info)
WIPO
(http://www.wipo.int/contact/en/)
USPTO
(maybe somehow get on their blog at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback/category/ip)
Regards,
--Paul
From: Hal Lockhart
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 01 December, 2011
09:55
To: Tolbert, John W; Doron Grinstein; Tyson, Paul H;
Subject: RE: [xacml] Groups - IPC WD-06
uploaded
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
