Valerio Venturi wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 10:20 +0100, David Groep wrote:
Sounds good. Another similar issue has been issued here an there, defining XACML attributes and obligation needed for authorization services. What about including that too? This is something that those implenting authorization services are facing, as you know, and community consensus would be very important. Also, deciding that may help in sorting out one of the main concern with the current authz decision spec, that is, having or not having attribute and obligation definition in the profile. If we can be sure to have those defined in a separate document to be released soon, may be it's ok to remove them from the current spec. DavidC, what do you think about that?
As I have said all along, I think defining attributes and obligations is a long term project that will mature as more people start to use them. I dont think a quick fix spec is the correct approach, because if it is quick, it wont be complete, and if it is complete it cannot be quick. Therefore the approach that I have been advocating is a two step one. A quick first stab at a few core attributes and obligations (either in an existing doc so that a charter change is not needed) or as a separate doc (in which case a charter change or new WG is needed) - I dont actually mind which approach is taken. But I dont support the creation of a new WG, since this will only dilute the effort we have, and it is likely to grow to include further topics (such as obligations :-) as one sees fit. If one is concerned about the progress of the current set of Authz documents it is because very few people are actually contributing to them, and some that are working in the area do not wish to actively contribute. After the first quick fix has been published then a much longer term project to produce a richer set can start. This longer term project must have an active dynamic set of attributes and obligations that can be added to as the need arises, rather like an IETF/IANA registration authority for well known ports. So it might be a web page that publishes this, rather than a paper document. It musn't be a static set, of that I am sure (I have enough experience of LDAP schemas to know this) regards David
For what concern (co)chairing, I'd like very much if you and Blair think it would help, but I need to check with my management. Given the unclear destiny of the project I've benn working on, I'm not sure I'll be working 100% on authorization starting from May. Until then, I'm available for bootstraping things.
Valerio
Comments welcome!
DavidG.
Valerio
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 15:22 +0100, Valerio Venturi wrote:
Hi, I'll try to checkpoint the discussion had so far.
As Krzysztof is planning to serve more than one VO with the same service, we cannot have a one to one relationship between entityIDs and VOs, this imply the need of having a VO attribute. Which was also more or less David's concern, an authority being able to assert whatever it wants. If we go wiht this, the VO attribute stays. We have two proposal so far. Tom suggested to use the MACE-Dir eduPersonScopedAffiliation attribute
<saml:Attribute xmlns:xacmlprof="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:profiles:attribute:XACML" xmlns:ldapprof="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:profiles:attribute:LDAP" xacmlprof:DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" ldapprof:Encoding="LDAP" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri" Name="urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.5923.1.1.1.9" FriendlyName="eduPersonScopedAffiliation"> <saml:AttributeValue xsi:type="xs:string">member@voName </saml:AttributeValue> </saml:Attribute>
while in our first draft Krzysztof and I suggested the use of a specific
<saml:Attribute xmlns:xacmlprof="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:profiles:attribute:XACML" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri" Name="uri_to_define" FriendlyName="vo" xacmlprof:DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"> <saml:AttributeValue xsi:type="xsd:string"> voName </saml:AttributeValue> </saml:Attribute>
Let's try to agree on one.
There were concerns about Tom's proposal to use Grouper to express groups, specifically about the contents being an URN. Anyway, the specification doesn't mandate them to be URN, it recommends to use URIs is uniqueness is to eb achieved.
Other concerns with using this?
Still we have no suggestions for expressing roles, apart from the initial (but I have made the group syntax homogeneous with the above)
<saml:Attribute xmlns:xacmlprof="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:profiles:attribute:XACML" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri" Name="uri_to_define" FriendlyName="role" xacmlprof:DataType="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"> <saml:AttributeValue xsi:type="xsd:string"> VO-Admin@vo </saml:AttributeValue> <saml:AttributeValue xsi:type="xsd:string"> SoftwareManager@vo:group:subgroup </saml:AttributeValue> </saml:Attribute>
that seems to receive more favor than the one with the scope attributes.
What problems can you see with that?
Valerio
-- ogsa-authz-wg mailing list ogsa-authz-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-authz-wg
-- ogsa-authz-wg mailing list ogsa-authz-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-authz-wg
-- ***************************************************************** David W. Chadwick, BSc PhD Professor of Information Systems Security The Computing Laboratory, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NF Skype Name: davidwchadwick Tel: +44 1227 82 3221 Fax +44 1227 762 811 Mobile: +44 77 96 44 7184 Email: D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk Home Page: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dwc8/index.html Research Web site: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/research/groups/iss/index.html Entrust key validation string: MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J PGP Key ID is 0xBC238DE5 *****************************************************************