Re: [yaco-liaison-tool] The liaison tool: Status Update

Patrik Fältström <> Thu, 07 April 2011 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102B23A68DF for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W09mNqncbCq7 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BDF3A68D6 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2191; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302167976; x=1303377576; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bMO87n8wwK+5DjbC6KNKUpYxsjbJrni9F4x3a/wwQp8=; b=WhjQKRwo8oCfKyfsR7M6eIiuU2EDZqcPhRTUiz5i8WEBvDrdaxEH6Aai kKD7JNkMyDNilfCleUFM35fOuLodjWXt1fh2fsWwerRm254XKAGjefxJz fqgM4HRTrBYAz1kP99E4V2tW0ycvZFxGhTJVWwSNkYpzVEHDbAHvjbkXS Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,315,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="82573257"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2011 09:19:35 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p379JYhk029573; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:19:34 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:19:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Emilio_A=2E_S=E1nchez?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:23:15 -0700
Cc:, Eliot Lear <>, Ray Pelletier <>
Subject: Re: [yaco-liaison-tool] The liaison tool: Status Update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Yaco / Liaison Statement Management Tool Project details <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:17:52 -0000

On 7 apr 2011, at 11.08, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:

>> The important thing is to be able to update the liaisons. And we can trust our (IETF) liaisons, so to get fine-grained access rights is not so important. The ability to get things right in the database is. Having bad data in the database -- as now -- is not working in the long(er) run.
>   I suppose, as I said in my previous mail, that the problem is who can 'take care' (mark as done) a liaison. Right now this action can be done by anyone whose email is listed in the liaison. But probably I should add the people that can edit the liaison to the ones that can 'take care' of it.

That imply that someone from ITU-T that is the receiver of a liaison can log in an edit an outgoing liaison that they receive... "interesting feature"...

You have an access right already today when one add a liaison, right? That access algorithm say whether you as a user can add certain data in the to/from fields.

1. An external party, for example someone from ITU SG2, should only be able to add a liaison that is incoming to IETF from SG2, but with various receivers on the IETF side.

2. An internal party, for example liaison to ITU-T SG2, should only be able to add liaisons to or from IETF and that external party.

3. An internal party that has power gloves, like the liaison to ITU-T should be like (2) but for more SG's than one

4. Secretariat should be able to access everything

Easiest way of course for 1, 2 and 3 is to have the ability for each user to map that to one relationship, and whether the access is incoming or outgoing. For example:

A. A user have access to some external groups (zero or more).

B. If the user is _incoming_ then the user can only add incoming liaisons.

C. If the user is _outgoing_ then the user can add incoming, outgoing liaisons AND edit the liaisons.

But once again, I am not so worried about giving people "too much access" to start with, because we have had problems for years with having not enough access in the tool.

So lets start with what you now have created! Sounds fine!