Re: [Ace] Extended REST model comment

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 30 June 2020 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECC73A02C1; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhOoNyLHi-tM; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F7133A0112; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:23:46 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: draft-bormann-core-ace-aif@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org
References: <039a01d64eec$ce5abdb0$6b103910$@augustcellars.com> <0E078421-C692-475E-880B-30295F520D88@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0E078421-C692-475E-880B-30295F520D88@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:23:46 -0700
Message-ID: <03ac01d64f13$fb297760$f17c6620$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
thread-index: AQJc5zWSw/4mzXPqMjE0jHzkpw47ggHd4fTPp9VqPfA=
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/XpEAo2Xwy-Fyd9Q63gwLjAtcgN4>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Extended REST model comment
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:23:55 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:35 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: draft-bormann-core-ace-aif@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] Extended REST model comment
> 
> On 2020-06-30, at 16:43, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> >
> > In trying to formalize a policy for the RD testing, I ended up with
> > something that I think needs to be noted in this section.  There is a
> > difference between the following statements:
> >
> > Access is granted to resources created by the client.
> > Access is granted to resources that could have been created by the client.
> >
> > The first is what the text seems to cover.  This make sense in for the
> > coffeepot where only the person who created the order should be able
> > to cancel it.  (Well maybe an administrator might need to as well.)
> > However it does not cover the case where an installer created a number
> > of entries in the RD.  A QA person then comes through to make sure the
> > installation was done correctly.  When he finds a problem, the first
> > statement requires that the original installer come out to fix it
> > while the second statement allows the QA person to make the fix.
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> interesting.  I was thinking about #1 — I can make a coffee, I can cancel
> making it, you can make a coffee, but you can’t cancel my coffee.
> Or delete my RD entry, etc.  So making the resource confers ownership (really:
> a separate set of permission bits) that is bound to the subject.
> 
> In my view of how permission systems usually work, the other alternative
> requires creating a group.  The inherited permission would then be attached to
> the group.
> Since AIF is about capability lists, not about subject identities, I think we are
> covered — just have the capability list on the group.

[JLS] I would agree that there is no need to make any changes in the AIF structure.  I would just like to see some text discussing that policy can enforce this in either way.

Jim

> 
> NFSv4 permissions probably also have a way to handle this kind of inheritance,
> but I’ll not have time to look that up today...
> 
> Grüße, Carsten