Hi,
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.
You're totally right, a quick fix spec is not what we need. Having a new group working on that seems to me going in the direction of more thought, complete documents, which is what we all would prefer.
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
Honestly I've a mild opinion on that. Probably it would be cleaner to have separated docs, as someone in the WG suggested, but I don't have problems with having some attributes defined in the authz decision request spec, and definitely this is not a showstopper.
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
I understood that the OGSA AuthZ WG is going to finish its work shortly after next OGF, or at least continuining at a minimum level, having the chartered docs in public comments. So I thought there wouldn't have been a big overlapping between the two WGs. Am I wrong? I implicitly suggested a change to the charter to include the attribute doc in my first mail, and my impression from talking with DavidG and Blair in the last momths is that they don't fell like changing the WG charter. Probably a clarification from the area directors on that is needed, since this is also related on how they see the future of the security area.
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.
I see your point, and I share your disappointment. But we cannot go chasing people and force them to commit. It's their choice, and either they're not interested in standards or they think it wasn't worth committing. As a condition for starting a new WG, we must have a real interest from the community. This means both time to commit, and implementation experience to share.
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)
Sounds good. I see you're the first to have ideas and attention in this topics. I think those things are worth a community effort, I don't mind what the name of the group is going to be. Valerio