Hi Erik, Paul, Jan,
There has been good discussion in the last 6 emails:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00005.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00004.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00003.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00002.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00001.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200910/msg00000.html
Reviewing them all has led me to step back a bit and try to see a
larger scope thru which all the details might be systematically viewed.
I will try to present the larger scope that has helped me view these
issues and then try to address a couple of the issues within that
context.
Starting with the Multiple Resource Profile, I see 4 basic
"hierarchical use cases", which involve "hierarchical node
identification", which I think can reduced to 2 "hierarchical use
cases", which may then be viewed as applying to xml and non-xml
resources.
The 4 use cases I see in the Multiple Profile are the following (Note:
the top node of the hierarchies involved in these use cases is
generally the node identified by the " 'resource-id' attribute in the
original request context", a phrase that appears on lines 111,115,143,
145. I think the term "original resource-id" can be used to distinguish
this resource-id from the generated individual resource-ids that appear
in the individual requests. Also, the original resource-id is used, as
one of the individual requests as well.):
- resource:scope="Immediate" covered by section 2.3. This use case
is essentially a "single" resource request and is relatively
uninteresting (in the context of the hierarchical node-naming
discussion), except for the fact that the individual "resource-id"
attribute may be considered to be essentially the same as the "original
resource-id" attribute. Also, section 2.3 covers the multiple single
request use case, which is essentially non-hierarchical in nature and
simply a list of resources
- resource:scope="Children" covered by sections 2.1 and 2.2, and
consists essentially of sending a set of individual requests, which are
each identified by "resource-id", where the "parent" or "original
resource-id" is one request and each child of this parent has a
"generated resource-id" to identify it. Also, all these resource-id's
may appear in the individual Result elements that are returned and thus
represents a tangible entity that needs to be explicitly implemented,
because it can actually appear as a specific return element as an
identifier of the explicit resource to which the Result applies.
- resource:scope="Descendants" also covered by sections 2.1 and
2.2, and represents the node identified by the "original resource-id"
plus all the element and attribute descendants of the original
resource-id node. Therefore, this use case requires the generation of a
tangible resource-id for every element and attribute in a hierarchical
resource including and below the element identified by the original
resource-id. Again, these may be tangible return values, and therefore
need to have a specific syntax and literal representation.
- resource:scope="EntireHierarchy" covered by sections 3.1 and 3.2.
This use case is essentially the same as resource:scope="Descendants"
except only one Result element is generated, and is therefore
relatively uninteresting from a "hierarchical naming perspective".
The point of the above is to call attention to the two primary use
cases: resource:scope="Children" and resource:scope="Descendants" that
involve the issue of naming of nodes in a hierarchy. In this context, I
note the following characteristics that I think may be of general
interest:
- Because the resource:scope="Descendants" use case requires the
ability to provide a tangible unique identifier to every node in an XML
document, if the original resource-id refers to the top node of that
document, there is an implicit requirement to have an explicit name for
every element in the hierarchy.
- There appears to be no explicit "need" to send the actual XML
document along with the Request, because all that is explicitly
required is the resource-id Attribute. The only need for the XML
document would be to look at additional attributes that may be in that
document, but those attributes are outside the scope of anything in the
Multiple Profile itself.
- Assuming the above point is acknowledged, it can also be
pointed out that while there may be policies written that use
additional attributes, there is no reason to think that any, or all of
those attributes necessarily would be found in the XML document.
- Therefore, if agreement exists on the above 2 points, one might
also be able to say that there really is no reason to restrict the
attributes for the policies to be attributes that can be accessed
specifically by the XPath mechanism, and therefore no real "reason" to
restrict the node identification to be an XPath syntax as opposed to
any other syntax.
- What these points are getting at is the notion that within the
multiple and hierarchical resource profiles there is an explicit need
to define an explicit syntax for identifying the nodes in a hierarchy,
be it and xml document or a non-xml document, but there is not explicit
need that this syntax should be explicitly XPath.
Given all the above I think it is also fair to say that XPath does not
even provide a syntax for explicit node-naming, although one can
specify a syntax for node naming using namespace prefixes in the path,
however, the XML document which has the resolution of those namespace
prefixes in xmlns attributes will need to accompany the request in
order to resolve the resource-id to a tangible value that can be
included in an IncludeInResult return attribute.
Granted that in a totally self-contained XPath environment, one might
be able to exist without ever explicitly naming a node outside of the
presence of the XML document itself, or the document schema, it appears
to me, at least, that such a situation kind of "bakes in" one specific
technology that will be required to be used to identify these
resources. This seems to me to be ok for specific implementations, but
it also appears to me to be at odds with the spirit of the core XACML
spec which states (lines 2659-2664):
"5.42 Element <Request>
The <Request> element is an abstraction layer used by the policy
language. For simplicity of expression, this document describes policy
evaluation in terms of operations on the context. However a conforming
PDP is not required to actually instantiate the context in the form of
an XML document. But, any system conforming to the XACML specification
MUST produce exactly the same authorization decisions as if all the
inputs had been transformed into the form of an <Request> element."
In summary, I believe the above considerations indicate that there is
nothing of functional substance in the Multiple or Hierarchical
Resource profiles that really require the presence of the XML document
in the Request element, and that all the capabilities can be
implemented without XPath or the XML document, and that therefore,
restricting functional capabilities, such as node-naming to be
represented in an explicitly XML-XPath dependent manner, while
providing no alternatives is unnecessarily restricting the
implementation technology to a specific form of resource representation.
i.e. the point I am trying to make is that while I have no objection to
XPath methods being included as representative of a way to implement
the functionality of the profiles, I do not agree that these methods
are necessarily sufficient in and of themselves to represent the
functional capabilities of these profiles. And for the node-naming
problem, in particular, I think that the XPath syntax provides only a
technology-specific way of representing the node names and that
therefore an alternative string representation that is not
technology-dependent is effectively required as an alternative. In
addition, I also believe that the suggestion I made using URI syntax or
something equivalent, meets the requirements and is transformable to
XPath syntax if necessary for implementation purposes.
Comments and suggestions welcome, and I realize that I may have
overlooked aspects of the problem, which might alter these conclusions,
but would request that those oversights or mistakes be pointed out for
consideration.
Thanks,
Rich
Erik Rissanen wrote:
4AC4B1B1.7050605@axiomatics.com" type="cite">Hi
Paul,
See some comments inline.
Best regards,
Erik
Tyson, Paul H wrote:
No one has produced an actual use case that
requires regexp on xpath resource-ids to solve. I am not inclined to
jump to this sort of solution. I have a lot of experience writing
xpath expressions for xslt transformations, so I am skeptical when
anyone suggests additional functionality is required in this area,
that is not already provided by well-established standards.
I still plan to start some wiki pages on these topics, but I want to
introduce some other aspects of this discussion.
1. Part of the problem is that XACML overloads the concept of
"resource-id" when it can be used actually as a "resource-selector" in
multi-resource request for XML resources. This causes the actual
resource-id that is used during evaluation to be different than the
initial resource-id (it has been "expanded" to describe the exact
node). I believe this is a defect in the specification, which should
be remedied in any case. You face this problem when you want to write
(as Jan does) rules involving the string value of the resource-id. (I
still don't understand the motivation for writing these sorts of rules,
but that's a different matter.)
Yes, I agree. If I understand you correctly, this is the exact same
issue I am thinking of when I say that the multiple resource profile
"breaks the XACML assumption that the <Request> describes a
single attempted access to a single resource".
2. Related to the above point, there seems to
be a gap in the current multi-resource specification, because it is not
clear how the response identifies the xml node for each decision. If
PEP asks for decisions on "//*[@id=('foo','bar','baz')]" (i.e.,
elements whose id attribute is 'foo', 'bar', or 'baz'), what should be
the respective values of the resource-ids in the response? They could
be "//*[@id='foo']", "//*[@id='bar']", "//*[@id='baz']". Or they could
be "/chapter[1]/section[3]/para[1]", "/chapter[2]",
"/chapter[2]/section[1]/fig[1]". Assuming the PEP has xpath processing
capabilities, it really shouldn't matter. But the XACML spec should at
least say something like "the returned resource-id shall be an xpath
expression which, when evaluated against the original xml content,
returns exactly (and only) the node on which the decision was issued".
This behavior is already required by the current specification, but
could perhaps be stated more explicitly. The PDP will return the
resource-id attribute specified in the individual request if the
"IncludeInResult" attribute has been set to "true". And the multiple
resource profile already requires that for each individual request the
resource-id must consist of an XPath expression which matches exactly
one node. The combined effect of this is the behavior you describe
above.
3. Much of this discussion centers around
the conceptual model of multi-resource requests. The spec says these
are to be treated as a series of individual requests, and describes the
required context of each derived request. This model is normative only
in concept, not for implementation--that is, a PDP must issue decisions
as if this model had been followed. The MR spec says "This Profile
does NOT REQUIRE that the implementation of the evaluation of a request
for access to multiple resources conform to the preceding model or that
actual Individual Resource Requests be constructed." (section 2)
Therefore, the behavior of any rule evaluation that depends on a
particular implementation of multi-resource requests is out of scope
(and unspecified). I believe the discussion of xpath resource-id rules
falls into this category. (I also believe the model of multi-resource
decision evaluation needs to be defined better.)
Sorry, but I don't understand this point. But I do think it is relevant
to discuss whether the spec can be implemented in any efficient manner,
and this can affect what the specification should be like.
--Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Herrmann [mailto:herrmanj@in.tum.de] Sent: Thursday, October
01, 2009 07:04
To: 'Rich.Levinson'
Cc: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: AW: [xacml] Re: XACML's limitations in the access control for
XML documents use case - AW: AW: [xacml] CD-1 issue #11: strictness of
xpath definition
Hi Rich,
I highly agree with what you said in this mail. It seems that your use
case goes a bit further then the one I am thinking of. Let me try to
identify the common and varying parts of our use cases.
If I understand you correctly you are not only thinking about how the
resource-id values of the individual decision requests in the xml use
case have to look like. You are further having the file system and URL
resource use case in mind. This is something I have never thought about
so far.
Further it seems that you are trying to represent the whole resource
through and only through URIs in one decision request. That's also
somehow different to the use case I have in mind, as in my scenario the
resource (the xml doc) is always included under <content> as it
is and the question of representation is always reduced to how to
represent the resource-id value that must match exactly one node under
content.
I think one important task is to try to identify the common or relating
aspects of the different use cases and where they differ or where they
are independent.
I agree that in issue 11 the namespace problem was not handled at all.
Thus some little extra work is needed.
I further agree that it would be beautiful to have the same style how
to define rules for different kind of resources if possible. Thus I
fully share your proposal to add an alternative for representing nodes
(or whatsoever) as resource-id-values or in general.
As far as I understand the Clark notation it is simply a substituted
form where prefixes are replaced by the namespaces bound to them. For
my use case this would work perfectly well. The question is if you want
to try to force the policy writer to follow this syntax when defining
the resource-id match in its rule. Further if you think of an
AttributeSelector that can concatenate resource-id with an offset this
implies that the AttributeSelector implementation must be able to deal
with the clark syntax to :-(
In my scenario there is another possible alternative (as mentioned in
the mail submitted two hours ago):
You could use a special reg-exp-On-XPath-strings function that is
namespace aware and substitutes the prefixes correspondingly before
doing the common reg-expr matching stuff on the resource-id attribute.
This reg-exp-On-XPath-strings function is the function to test the
resource-id values only.
Does your use cases require more functions that work on a URI based
representation of individual resources?
Below you'll find further comments to your questions in an earlier
mail.
Basic conclusion of the comments below:
allow to represent the resource in xml or through a set of
attribute/value pairs (if can be shown that this realy brings
advantages).
Looking forward to further discussions and comments.
Best regards
Jan
________________________________________
Jan Herrmann
Dipl.-Inform., Dipl.-Geogr.
wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
Technische Universität München
Institut für Informatik
Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Informatik / Kooperative Systeme
Boltzmannstr. 3
85748 Garching
Tel: +49 (0)89 289-18692
Fax: +49 (0)89 289-18657
www11.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
________________________________________
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Rich.Levinson [mailto:rich.levinson@oracle.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 28. September 2009 22:40
An: Erik Rissanen
Cc: XACML TC
Betreff: Re: [xacml] Re: XACML's limitations in the access
control for XML
documents use case - AW: AW: [xacml] CD-1
issue #11:
strictness of xpath
definition
Hi Erik,
The intent of the proposal is not to replace or be better
than XPath,
but to be an "alternative representation"
for node identification as
described in section 2.0 of the profile, which if we included in the
profile as suggested in section 2.2.1, presumably would then be a
"recommended alternative representation".
The reason for the suggestion was to address the
requirements specified
in issue 11, which contained a
recommended syntax that did not
incorporate namespaces. By using the Clark notation for the
namespaces,
the syntax in issue 11 can be directly
incorporated to the
URI scheme as
described in the proposal.
Once the syntax is in place then the same kinds of regexp-scoped
Policy's can be written for XML nodes as for file system and URL
resources.
Assuming the syntax and proposal is correct, it may be a useful
alternative representation in some situations, particularly
where it may
be an objective to identify all resources
w URIs, and/or
where the mixed
XACML/XPATH syntax is a concern wrt
Policy specification.
Thanks,
Rich
Erik Rissanen wrote:
Hi Rich,
Some of the reasons why an XPath approach could be better are:
1. XPath contains many functions and other capabilities,
which might
not be as easily available in the URI
based approach.
2. The TC would avoid the effort to define the URI
approach. We would
need to improve the xpath approach
instead, but I suspect that the
effort is smaller since we can reuse so much from xpath,
compared with
a wholly new URI based approach.
3. It is likely that an XML resource is already available
in XML form,
so an xpath implimentation can be
applied to it directly,
while the
URI approach requires a transformation,
which could
degrade performance.
Note that it is not true that the whole
XML has to be repeated for
each resource since multiple <Attributes> elements are
not required
with the xpath approach, and with XACML
3.0 it is
possible to reuse
the same <Content> document for
all the multiple queries.
Best regards,
Erik
Rich.Levinson wrote:
Hi Jan, et al,
I have had a busy week and not been able to respond until now,
however, looking over all the subsequent emails to the
one to which
this is a response (
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200909/msg00081.html
), it appears to me that there are still unresolved
issues, and from
my perspective, there are some
assertions made, with which I
disagree, about AttributeDesignators, which I thought my
suggested
URI scheme would address, but
apparently it either needs further
explanation or I am missing something that I have not
yet understood.
In any event I would very much like
to determine whether these
assertions are true or false in order that the TC be of
a single mind
when comparing the capabilities of
AttributeSelectors and
AttributeDesignators.
The assertion with which I disagree is that the
AttributeDesignators
cannot do what the
AttributeSelectors can do because the
AttributeDesignators lose the hierarchical structure.
My response is
that if you don't throw away the
hierarchical structure when
creating your AttributeDesignators then this
perceived problem does
not exist.
For the XML use case:
I can imagine that it is possible to rebuild the semantics that are
expressed through the structure of nodes through an appropriate naming
of
the attributes. But it seems to be very complicated and I can't find
the
advantages of transforming an originally xml encoded resource in uris
without benefits. Further this will imply special functions working on
the
chosen naming-schema see below.
Why should one try to avoid AttributeSelectors at all?
If I am wrong about this, I will
accept that, however, I do not
believe that my approach to the AttributeDesignators has been
considered on its merits yet, and I will try to be
totally explicit
in this email, and I will show how I
think Jan's
proposed solution
can be completely done using only
AttributeDesignators and regexp
string matching.
Having been thru some lengthy discussions earlier this
year on the
hierarchical profile, I became quite
sensitive to the node naming
issue, and one of the results of those earlier
discussions was that
if hierarchical URIs are used to name
nodes, that these
names contain
within them the navigation necessary
to locate the node, so that
using these names outside of an XML document does not lose the
structural relationships.
Using James Clark's universal name syntax
("{namespace}elementname"
http://www.jclark.com/xml/xmlns.htm)
combined with a transform to
replace the xml document with a list of name/value pairs
(there are
several XML to JSON xslt transformers
available free,
which I expect
could readily be adapted to produce
name/value pairs in
the format
below), where each element and
attribute is identfied by its full
path expressed as universal element names. For example,
assuming the
document you gave as an example had a
namespace = "foo":
<objects xmlns:="foo">
<book>
<title>xxx</title>
<author>Bob</author>
<id>100</id>
<price>30</price>
<book-content>.....</book-content >
<book>
<book>
<title>yyy</title>
<author>Alice</author>
<id>200</id>
<price>80</price>
<book-content >...</book-content >
<book>
</objects>
The above document would first be transformed to the
following set of
name value pairs (ignoring
whitespace):
/{foo}objects = ""
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1] = ""
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]/{foo}title = "xxx"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]/{foo}author = "Bob"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]/{foo}id = "100"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]/{foo}price = "30"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]/{foo}content = "..."
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2] = ""
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]/{foo}title = "yyy"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]/{foo}author = "Alice"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]/{foo}id = "200"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]/{foo}price = "80"
/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]/{foo}content = "..."
The next step is to define resources, which for this use
case would
be done based on multiple resource
profile, where we would have 2
resources, using Erik's shorthand:
<Resource>resource-id=/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]</Resource>
<Resource>resource-id=/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]</Resource>
The next step is to create xacml attributes for these
resources using
the full universal names as
AttributeIds (again w some
shorthand),
resulting in the following 2
requests:
(Note: since AttributeId requires anyURI datatype, the following
percent-encoding must be applied to the AttributeId values:
* { -> %7B
* } -> %7D
* [ -> %5B
* ] -> %5D )
<Request>
<Subject>subject-id="Bob"</Subject>
<Resource>
<Attribute>AttributeId="resource-id"
value="/{foo}objects/{foo}book[1]"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B1%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dti
tle"
value = "xxx"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B1%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dau
thor"
value = "Bob"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B1%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Did
"
value = "100"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B1%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dpr
ice"
value = "30"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B1%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dco
ntent"
value = "..."</Attribute>
</Resource>
</Request>
<Request>
<Subject>subject-id="Bob"</Subject>
<Resource>
<Attribute>AttributeId="resource-id"
value="/{foo}objects/{foo}book[2]"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B2%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dti
tle"
value = "yyy"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B2%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dau
thor"
value = "Alice"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B2%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Did
"
value = "200"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B2%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dpr
ice"
value = "80"</Attribute>
<Attribute>AttributeId="/%7Bfoo%7Dobjects/%7Bfoo%7Dbook%5B2%5D
/%7Bfoo%7Dco
ntent"
value = "..."</Attribute>
</Resource>
</Request>
All the above processing to create the requests is done in the
ContextHandler, then the requests are submitted one at a
time to the
PDP.
Now the rule that gets applied to each of these requests is the
following:
<Rule effect=Deny>
Target:
reg-exp-string-match(resource-id,
/{foo}objects/{foo}book\[\d+\]
Condition:
AttributeDesignator(AttributeId =
function:string-concatenate(resource-id,
/%7Bfoo%7Dprice) > 50 and
AttributeDesignator(AttributeId =
function:string-concatenate(resource-id, /%7Bfoo%7Dauthor) =
AttributeDesignator(subject-id)
</Rule>
Unless I am mistaken, all the logic and structure is
retained and it
has been done purely w
AttributeDesignators and regexp.
I think i can follow your approach and agree that this explicitly
represents
the xml resource through URIs.
Probs:
- things like ../../ will be hard to handle
- in the geo use case we have an geometry data type. This datapye is
defined
by the following xml code:
<gml:Polygon srsName="http://www.opengis.net/../epsg.xml#43">
<gml:outerBoundaryIs>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:coordinates decimal="." cs="," ts="
">-120.000000,65.588264
...-120.000000,65.588264
</gml:coordinates>
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:outerBoundaryIs>
</gml:Polygon>
Now assume you try to define a rule, following your approach, in which
you
use a pointer to a polygon element in the decision request's content
element
(e.g. a polgon representing the location of a building):
In very dirty/wrong XACML this will look like this:
<Rule effect=permit>
<Target>
subject-id==Alice
reg-exp-string-match(resource-id, /{foo}objects/{foo}building\[\d+\]
<Condition>
<Apply FunctionId=within>
<ExtendedAttributeSelector Category=resource>
<concat>
<AttributeDesigntor>resource-id
<AttributeValue>/%7Bfoo%7Dlocation/%7Bfoo%7DPolygon
</concat>
<AttributeValue DataType=Geometry>
<Polygon>...defining the area of the USA </Polygon>
</AttributeValue>
</Apply>
</Condition>
</Rule>
So far no probs. Let's have a have a closer look at the
AttributeSeletor,
responsible for instantiating an attribute of datatype Geometry. It
will
have to go through all the URIs representing the resource and find the
relevant ones in order to instantiate the geometry attribute. This can
off
course be implemented but the question is why to "flatten" an xml doc,
if
afterwards, you need to rebuild parts of it.
This makes the AttributeSelector implementation unneccesarely
complicated.
I think what needs to be analysed is:
- What are the advantages to transform the xml resource completely into
uris
or Attribut/Value pairs respectively?
- What are the disadvantages of doing this?
The approach of leaving the xml resource as it is in the decision
request
and just adding a resource-id/value pair pointing to one node implies
that
you will have to use AttributeDesignators and AttributeSelectors in
your
rules. Is this a disadvantage? It seems that you are trying to avoid
the
selector at all. But I can't follow why.
However if it can be shown that it brings advantages to encode an xml
resource in the decision request only through Attribute/Value pairs
that I
would support this as an legal option that should be added to the
profile.
Of course this must bring advantages. Whithout advantages this will
just
introduce another way of how to define the same rules for now reason.
Assuming the above is correct, then
the points I made about the
advantages over XPath (for an enterprise looking to use
only URIs to
identify attributes):
1. The XML document does not need to be passed in with
the request.
There is no node collection,
only string operations.
If I may concretise:
Case 1.
In the global request you will have a content element containing the
xml
resource and an scope attribute describing a subset of this node
collection
that will be subject to the access control process.
Based on this the PDP or Contexthandler will derive the individual
decision
requests. Here the xml resource could be transformed as you described
above
and thus you will afterwards only have attribute/value pairs.
Case2:
The PEP can directly submits "already-transformed" global decision
request
where the xml resource that is "normally" under <content> is
replaced by a
set of Attribute/Value pairs. Further the resource-id and scope must
specify
a set of these Attribute-Names. Based on this the PDP or Contexthandler
will
derive the individual decision requests. The individual decision
requests
will still contain the complete set of Attribute/Value pairs that
represent
the xml resource and further the resource-id value will be equal to one
of
these Attribute-Names.
2. For very large XML documents,
say a catalog of
10,000 books, each
book is processed individually
independent of the
other books, as
compared to the XPath case,
where one might expect the whole
document has to get parsed for each of the 10,000 individual
requests.
This is only true if you don't have content dependant rules. e.g.
assume you
have a rule that says permit access to books if none of the other books
is
from the same author. Nevertheless I can imagine that in average less
data
has to be parsed... On the other side there might be an overhead of
determining which data. Again the question: What are the advantages of
transforming the resource
completely into URIs. I think if this is the central point a closer
analysis
is needed.
3. There is no paradigm shifting,
or what I believe
was referred to
in the discussion as "shifting
semantics between
XPath and XACML
in terms of representing the
policies.
If i understand you correctly you mean that all access right semantic
will
be expressed in xacml. That is necessarily true as you don't have any
xml
resource in the request anymore and thus xpath predicates can't be
defined
anymore. Is this an advantage? Clearly this reduces the options how the
same
rule can be defined in xacml and might therefore simplify a
are-two-rules-equal test. Note that this could also be achieved if you
disallow xpath with predicates in xacml. Thus this issue can be
discussed in
general.
My experience in using a mixture of xpath predicates and xacml where
necessary (i.e. where the ac semantics can't be expressed through xpath
predicates) helps defining shorter and more readable rules. I would
leave it
open to the policy administrator if he implements the semantics through
xpath predicates or xacml functions. Maybe a best practise study could
analyse this topic (next to others). In general I think such a document
might be very helpful as soon as the 3.0 specs are standardised in
order to
make it easier for users to use XACML
Again, assuming the above is correct,
I am not assuming
this will be
desirable for everyone, however there
may very well be
organizations
for whom the advantages of this
approach are decisive.
A couple other points are that
* the "unsightliness" of the AttributeIds and the
AttributeDesignators can be "covered" up by policy
tools that
facilitate defining policies
based on XML Schemas,
and can keep
all the encoding details
transparent to the policy
designers.
i agree
* the issue about basing policies
on the structure of
XML documents
is a legitimate concern,
however, if structure of documents
change, then a legitimate case could probably made that the
namespace associated with that structure should
also change, which
would mean the policy tools
would need to be able
to facilitate
upgrading of policies to new
namespaces based on
new revs of the
schemas.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Thanks,
Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you
must leave the
OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link
to all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you
must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
oups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php