OASIS ACAL [XACML] TC

 View Only

[security-services] NameIdentifier schema. Forwarded message from Scott Cantor.

  • 1.  [security-services] NameIdentifier schema. Forwarded message from Scott Cantor.

    Posted 10-28-2003 14:49
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xacml message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: [security-services] NameIdentifier schema. Forwarded message from Scott Cantor.


    Colleagues, I found this discussion interesting.  Would there be
    any value to XACML changing from XML DataType attributes to XML
    tags?  We would need to retain the DataType attribute in
    Designators and Selectors.  I'm not recommending this, I'm just
    looking for discussion.
    
    Anne
    ------- start of forwarded message -------
    From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
    To: "'SAML'" <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [security-services] NameIdentifier schema
    Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:05:53 -0500
    
    I took an AI to try and lay out some samples and possible alternatives for
    the NameIdentifier schema in 2.0. My latest draft document is here:
    http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/download.php/4029/draf
    t-sstc-nameid-05.pdf
    
    Would like to discuss the following if possible during call, and bring this
    to closure. Nailing down a prelim. approach to this schema will get things
    moving, IMHO.
    
    Schematically speaking, I have two competing requirements:
    - degree of compatibility with 1.x
    - support for new attributes and non-string content
    
    I see two ways to add a new "kind" of NameIdentifier that can contain the
    EncryptedData/EncryptedKey elements. Either we can build a new type
    hierarchy that fits in the old NameIdentifier element slot of Subject, or we
    can add choice to the Subject element itself so the new type(s) can be used
    instead of the old type.
    
    My reasoning behind a new hierarchy of types is that both encrypted
    identifiers (and presumably other future complex identifiers) and string
    identifiers would need to share a common set of attributes, such as
    NameQualifiers and validity times. But this can be done using an attribute
    group as well, so there would still be schema reuse without type derivation.
    OTOH, I don't know if schema data binding packages recognize that kind of
    reuse, whereas I would assume type derivation is reflected as class
    derivation.
    
    My latest draft-05 reworks the names such that the current string-style
    identifiers remain called NameIdentifier / NameIdentifierType. I derived
    this from a new BaseNameIdentifier / BaseNameIdentifierType. My thinking
    here was to maintain some textual compatibility with 1.x, while
    acknowledging that the extra attributes I added would still be incompatible
    with 1.x anyway.
    
    But the real discussion probably needs to be around the Format attribute,
    and whether we want to proceed with this in-band non-XML approach to
    "typing" these elements. If you think about it, it's basically like what
    XACML is doing with their attribute typing, using an XML attribute to
    indicate a "type" via a URI so that the receiver knows how to process the
    data. I guess Irving might argue that it's a string identifier, and who
    cares beyond that, but I know at least in the federated vs. transient
    pseudonym case, I do care.
    
    The question is, should this be communicated with a URI attribute like
    Format, or by using different XML elements to signal it?
    
    For example, with other attributes omitted, we could do:
    
    <NameIdentifier Format="urn:....:federated"> foo </NameIdentifier>
    
    or we could do:
    
    <FederatedNameIdentifier> foo </FederatedNameIdentifier>
    
    In the former case, we have to have processing rules that dictate what the
    proper element/type is for that Format. And define what the various other
    attributes mean. And my proposal in fact includes those rules, including for
    the older formats from 1.x.
    
    In the latter case, do we still define usage of the Format attribute for
    these new elements, or do we leave that basically unspecified and assume
    that people will use the element or xsi:type directly? I would assume the
    latter.
    
    I did in fact originally have a proposal that resembles the second approach.
    What I think I failed to see was that using Format in that design was extra
    work, and required extra processing rules that aren't really useful. My
    reaction was to reduce the proposal to a Format-based design using a common
    XML element. It may be that my mistake was throwing out the wrong part.
    
    -- Scott
    
    
    To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
    
    ------- end of forwarded message -------
    
    -- 
    Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
    Sun Microsystems Laboratories
    1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
    Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]