Re: [higgins-dev] RP Policy discussed during the higgins call

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't believe that XACML is the best language for what the relying party needs to express, its fact that we will have to support WS-Policy assertions and in particular WS-SecurityPolicy assertions for interoperability with Cardspace, so at a minimum we should be compatible with WS-Policy and allow the same intersections when it comes to assertions.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Dieter M Sommer <DSO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dieter M Sommer <DSO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/26/2006 12:31 PM

Please respond to
"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [higgins-dev] RP Policy discussed during the higgins call

Hi,

our current discussions are on an abstract level, yet independent of a
concrete syntactical representation. Thus, we are still open to go for a
new language or using extensions of an existing one, provided that this
fulfills all our requirements, such as the general evidence specification
used for third-party endorsed attributes and the requirements Paul was
referring to.

An extension of an existing language would have to be clean in the sense
that extensions are only done for well-defined extension points.
Furthermore, the extensions of existing evaluation engines would have to be
doable in clean way.

Looking forward to discuss those issues such that we can come up with the
best possible solution for Higgins.


Cheers, Dieter.

higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/26/2006 06:52:53 PM:

> http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Relying_Party_Security_Policy
>
> I joined the call late, and just caught the very last part of this
> discussion so I apologize if this issue was covered.   I was curious
> about why we are proposing a new assertion language for the Relying
> Party when there are several language definitions already out there,
> as well as execution / evaluation engines for those languages.    I
> would hate to have many policy languages evaluated and translated
> across the Higgins infrastructure.
>
> One example of using XACML as WS-Policy constraints was described here
> http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml/ws-policy-constraints-current.pdf
> I have successfully used the http://sunxacml.sourceforge.net/
> evaluation engine to evaluate predicates outside of authorization policy.
>
>
> Duane_______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev