Re: [plasma] Advanced Policies

"Jim Schaad" <> Sat, 06 August 2011 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D2821F8538 for <>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0kaVTEMPtGWP for <>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB31A21F8520 for <>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TITUS (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9701238F16; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <>
To: "'Fitch, Scott C'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:27:40 -0700
Message-ID: <001401cc547f$ad8ab430$08a01c90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQG0Ugg4WZY2wNlSixXTMHoIU8crx5U/VwWA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [plasma] Advanced Policies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:52:59 -0000

Having separate threads is frequently simpler so I have no objections to

I really wish Trevor was not on vacation so he could respond.  Instead I
will attempt to channel him and try not to get things really wrong.

Based on previous conversations that I have had with Trevor (including last
week at the Plasma side bar), the assumption we are working on is that users
are not the brightest of people and things should be made as simple as
possible for them.   One of the corollaries of this is that options should
generally not be given to users for configuration purposes.  This means that
there is no expectation that a generic ITAR policy would ever exist for a
company.   Instead you would define a different policy for each of the ITAR
export licenses/ projects.

Thus if you work on aircraft as an engineer, you would choose a role for a
specific plane and get a small list of policies.  It might be that the
end-user would not even see that it was ITAR export controlled, but rather
just that it is internal, external for that specific project.

The more options that make the end user select, the more likely that are to
get things wrong has been a basic philosophy that Trevor has espoused during
the design.   Counter arguments would be interesting, but probably better
after he gets back at the end of the month.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Fitch, Scott C
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:05 PM
> To:
> Subject: [plasma] Advanced Policies
> (Apologies for all the posts. Just trying to keep the threads separate for
> commenting.)
> It's important to acknowledge that many Advanced policies will required
> information about the message beyond just the Policy identifier. An
> from the export control world: An email may be governed by the ITAR
> however, access control decisions are made based ITAR and the specific
> export license or agreement that applies to the message. Simply
> that the document is export controlled doesn't given the PDP enough
> information to make a grant or deny decision.
> Stated differently, an access decision is based on attributes about the
> requester, resource, environment, and action. The plasma scenarios for
> Advanced Policies should include the ability to convey attributes (labels)
> about the message (including, but not limited to the policy identifier)
> attributes about the recipient.
> Scott Fitch
> Cyber Architect
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Business Services
> _______________________________________________
> plasma mailing list