| Alex Karasulu 2007-10-29, 1:11 pm |
| Hi David,
Could you do me a favor and presume this conversation includes a community
of
people which have different amounts of time they can give to this. It's a
conversation
that's bigger than just you and I. At least I think that's what we both
want it to be.
The volunteers out there don't have dedicated time like you to grok massive
emails and to read a research paper while expressing their opinions. At
least
on the onset of the discussion. Those that want to delve into some of the
other deeper aspects of RBAC (which there are not many) can do so and read
the NIST paper.
But we have to take this in smaller steps or we're going to loose valuable
information
that we can gather from others which may have less time they can contribute
to this
discussion.
Community and people take more than sticking to a set of facts. We need the
wisdom
to understand that sometimes the approach matters as well. Let's take this
slow and in
small bite sized chunks to be considerate to others.
Alex
On 10/28/07, David Jencks <david_jencks-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> OK, I definitely should have talked about this before I commented on
> your proposed definitions. I think we should keep all the terms in a
> proposed model in one email thread (e.g as I changed your posts to)
> since the terms are very dependent on one another and unless all
> parts of a proposed change are in one email we will not be able to
> get a consistent view of such a proposed change. That's why I
> combined them: I can't even keep your original model in my head
> unless its on one "piece of paper". However if you insist I will
> repost my comments as replies to your original emails. I think that
> will result in much more confusion than keeping all the terms together.
>
>
> OK, but as i tried to make clear in my comments I do not find all
> your definitions clear and they are not the same as the model in the
> NIST paper. I believe you suggested we should make our terms and
> definitions as clear as possible so I think my pointing out where I
> find your language unclear is entirely appropriate.
>
> If you think that it is better to have shorter emails and no easy way
> to construct a proposed modified model after comments to many of
> those shorter emails, I'll be happy to take my comments apart into
> the individual emails rather than the verbatim aggregation I used.
>
> I'd like to mention why I like the NIST model: it's really easy for
> me to figure out what it means. I can easily see how to implement
> the data model in java, in a relational database, or even despite my
> relative lack of familiarity with ldap, in an ldap schema. When I
> think of operations involving the model, whether it be deciding if a
> user can do something or changing their permissions or examining
> permissions, its really easy to see how to do it. When I look at
> stuff thats not directly from the NIST model everything gets
> muddier. This applies to my descriptions of scope and denied
> permissions and roles, and many of your proposed definitions. I feel
> like if we don't start with the NIST model we will be wasting time
> reinventing the wheel.
>
>
|