Hi Erik,
I don’t follow how this relates to the nested and related entities profile and I didn’t mean to suggest we extend the profile using regex matching. Could you
perhaps elaborate?
My point is that if the profile is supposed to be called the “privacy” profile it should not be restricted to a very specific use-case and it should at least
cover other forms of purpose-based policies. My problem is with the normative policy which addresses only a very simple use-case while the profile bears the very broad title of “privacy”.
Regards,
Mohammad
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Erik Rissanen
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [xacml] Comments on XACML Privacy Policy v1.0 profile
Hi Mohammad,
There are lots of more use cases similar to these, since various properties could be used in combination. These would be better handled by the related and nested entities profile, so rather than expanding specific attributes here to cover a few use cases by
simple regex matching, I suggest that we put this profile on hold for now, and review it from ground up based on the entities profile.
Best regards,
Erik
On 2014-05-26 19:50, Mohammad Jafari wrote:
Hello,
Now that we are in the process of public review, I wanted to share some comments that I have had on the privacy profile. I think the privacy profile can be
updates to support much broader privacy policies.
Purpose constraints can take the following basic forms (there might be more complex/combined forms but let’s only consider the most common forms):
1. white list: a list of purposes that are allowed. Any other purposes will be denied.
2. black list: a list of prohibited purposes. Any other purpose will be allowed.
These constraints can be combined with other authorization factors and form purpose-based policies. The following are the main categories for such policies.
These can be combined to form more complex policies.
A.
Action-centric: a purpose constraint on the action or action attributes: e.g.
"printing is only allowed for the purpose of treatment."
"research purpose is forbidden for remote actions."
B.
Resource-centric: a purpose constraints on the use of a certain resource or a group of resources: e.g.
"Alice's medical record must only be used for the purpose of treatment."
"Reproductive health data must not be used for the purpose of research."
C.
Subject-centric: a purpose constraint on the subject or a group of subjects: e.g.
"The purpose of treatment is forbidden for members of the role 'admin'."
"Research staff can only assume the purpose of research."
D.
Environment-centric: a purpose constraint on the environmental attributes: e.g.
"No action for the purpose of ‘product research’ is allowed on the sales department computers."
"The only purposes allowed outside business hours are telephone and email marketing."
The current profile only supports type 1.B.
My suggestions is that the attributes definitions be extended and remain normative while the standard rules section is made non-normative and extended to incorporate
the above forms as different possible forms of purpose-based policies.
Regards,
Regards,
Mohammad Jafari, Ph.D.
Security Architect, Edmond Scientific Company
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Chet Ensign
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:15 AM
To:
Subject: [xacml] Your Public Review for XACML Privacy Policy v1.0 has been announced
Members of the XACML TC,
Your 15 day public review for XACML v3.0 Privacy Policy Profile Version 1.0 has been announced. The review ends on 6 June 2014. You can find the announcement at
https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/15-day-public-review-for-xacml-v3-0-privacy-policy-profile-v1-0-ends-june-6th.
I have also posted an announcement to the OASIS and XACML LinkedIn groups, Twitter and the OASIS FaceBook page. Feel free to like/comment/retweet these announcements to spread the word.
Please consider forwarding these announcement on to other parties who may be interested in the work. In my experience, TCs that actively solicit outside review get more and better quality feedback on their specifications.
Also, please keep in mind the OASIS requirements for handling comments [1]. Non-TC member feedback can only be submitted to the TC's comment list
. The TC must have someone subscribed to this mail list to monitor comments. All submitted comments must be acknowledged by the TC. In addition, the TC needs to maintain
a log of comments received and their resolutions. The comment resolution log will need to be available when you begin your next public review. A simple comment resolution log template is available in OpenDocument [2] and Office [3] format.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding the review or next steps.
=== Additional references:
[1]
https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin/handling-the-comments-received-during-a-public-review
[2]
https://www.oasis-open.org/sites/www.oasis-open.org/files/Simple-comment-resolution-log-template_0.ods
[3]
https://www.oasis-open.org/sites/www.oasis-open.org/files/Simple-comment-resolution-log-template_0.xls
--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html
TC Administration information and support is available at
http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin
Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open
