second try.....didn’t went through the first round Von: Jan Herrmann [mailto:
herrmann_jan@gmx.de] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2011 23:19 An: '
xacml@lists.oasis-open.org' Betreff: raw notes from f2f day 2: 9:00-12:15 AM below the raw notes from the f2f day 2 – morning session. They are not very detailed given the unstructured nature of the discussions. best regards Jan Minutes 29th of June 9 am - 12:15 pm attendees: hal rich levinson erik andy greg nevin jan herrmann david choy david button john tolbert david chadwick David C.: Introduction to the Break the glass profile workflow intro Hal: repetition of the architecture Jan: more generic view possible. state is the central part David/Hal/Jan: discussion on the general use case Jan: intro to a similar use case: rewrite obligations.... David Co.: global BTG` David application dependant Jan: standardise state-service interface Hal: many ways to do it David: continue of the btg profile intro advice-id that needs to be standardised Jan: comment on section4 -> different ways how to submit the break the glass action: extra service-language? vs. extended app interface Erik/Jan: discussion on how to represent the attributes Hal: need for the obligation to set the state David/Hal/Jan/Erik/Rich: discussion Hal: coupling between two policies, break the glass advice & right to set the state David Co: why so complicated, can be outsourced David: highlights the importance David Co: performance overhead David: explains that only btg process is triggered if the adr describes a corresponding situation. not the general case... Jan: dependency of rights Hal: when do you trigger btg process? David: section 5 --> discussion Hal: agenda for the next two days. obligation&advice combining, than continue of break the glass, other items. Hal: rich discovered the asymmetry in the effect if deny-overrides comb-alg. is used with advices and obligations. the issue: what is evaluated, which obligations&advices get fired Erik: defend that the asymmetry is okay. Rich: implementers guide on the combing algorithms discussion points to an acm paper on xacml ambiguities -> Access Control Policy Combining: Theory Meets Practice (
https://www.cerias.purdue.edu/assets/pdf/bibtex_archive/2008-9-report.pdf ) draws an example showing the problem Hal: demonstrates the obligation families slides Andy: user performs a single action addressing multiple rsources-> multiple obligations that are equal--> need for mechanisms to combine equal obligations Rich: goes through the mentioned paper and highlights the things that are now addressed by xacml 3.0 the implementers guide is okay but some details & choices are implicit.