OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

 View Only

Re: [xacml] 7.7 Obligations

  • 1.  Re: [xacml] 7.7 Obligations

    Posted 10-08-2002 04:19
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xacml message

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


    Subject: Re: [xacml] 7.7 Obligations


    
    I think XACML specification should basically focus on the functionality on
    the PDP but it does not necessarily mean that it MUST NOT say anything
    about entries other than PDP in the normative sections. For example,
    Section 7.1 describes desirable behavior in "PEP", for example in line
    2636-2664. The following are excerpt:
    
    - If the "Permit" value is returned, then the PEP MAY permit access to the
    resource.
    - If the "Deny" value is returned, then the PEP SHALL deny access to the
    resource.
    - If the "Indeterminate" value is returned, it means that the PDP could not
    make a decision. The PDP MAY return a decision value of "Indeterminate"
    with a status code of  "... missing-attribute", etc.
    - If the "NotApplicable" is returned, it means that the PDP's policy is not
    applicable to the request, implying that the PEP should send its request to
    another PDP.
    
    The following are the text regarding obligations and I want to add in this
    section:
    
    - If the "Permit with obligations(s)" value is returned, then the PEP MAY
    permit access to the resource and PEP is responsible for fulfilling the
    obligation(s). If there is an obligation that is not understandable by the
    PEP, then the PEP SHALL deny access to the resource.
    - If the "Deny with obligations(s)" value is returned, then the PEP SHALL
    deny access to the resource and PEP is still responsible for fulfilling the
    obligation(s). If there is an obligation that is not understandable by the
    PEP, then the PEP SHALL raise an error. How and which error should be
    raised is outside the scope of XACML.
    
    Michiharu Kudo
    
    IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory, Internet Technology
    Tel. +81 (46) 215-4642   Fax +81 (46) 273-7428
    
    
    
    
                                                                                                                                           
                          bill parducci                                                                                                    
                          <bill.parducci@ov        To:       "'XACML TC '" <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>                                    
                          erxeer.com>              cc:                                                                                     
                                                   Subject:  Re: [xacml] 7.7 Obligations                                                   
                          2002/10/08 10:26                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                           
    
    
    
    > Decision or no decision, how does it make sense?
    huh?  this a zen thing? :o)
    
    > What is a PEP? We know what a PDP is. It takes a well formed input and
    > evaluates it against a well formed policy and yields a well formed result
    > semantically consistent with the input and policy. There is a notion of
    > conformity and compliance. Furthermore that compliances is based on
    > mathematic principles.
    >
    > A PEP is merely a point in some application somewhere, that may or may
    not
    > even call on a PDP, PRP, or a PIP. So, how can you place any coformance
    > requirements on it? Are you going to call an application PEP compliant?
    > Who would care?
    
    so what you are saying is that SAML is a waste time because remote azn
    requests will never occur amongst vendors? (remote auth is only half of
    SAML).
    
    > If you want to have compliance points based on obligations, they should
    be
    > placed on the component we are defining, the PDP, to give you the correct
    > decision.
    
    the issue is not if the pdp gives the correct decision, it is that the
    decision may have as a component an obligation (note to daniel:
    obligations may also occur for DENY). by definition any device receiving
    an obligation MUST be able to comprehend that obligation in order to
    permit access to a resource.
    
    > If the intended behavior is to deny access for non-understandable
    > obligcations, perhaps, we should say that the PDP should be configured
    > with "understandable" obligations, and to answer Deny if a decision of
    > Permit comes up with any obligations not in the "understandable" set.
    
    that would mean policies on the PDP must reflect the capabilities of all
    potential PEPs. that would break encapsulation and lead to an impossibly
    difficult system to administer (the specter of tiered 'understanding
    capabilities').
    
    > Alternatively, we can put "understandable" obligations in the
    > RequestContext, and the evaluation depends on those "understandable"
    > obligations in the same manner.
    
    same issue.
    
    b
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
    
    
    
    
    
    


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


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC