I would like to offer the following questions for consideration for addition to the AuthZ survey: 1) What access control models are supported by your authorization system? a) Role Based Access Control (RBAC) b) Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) c) Other? 2) What are the types of factors/attributes/claims that are supported by your authorization system? a) Identity and Authority based b) Resource based c) Environmental based d) Other 3) Does your authorization system provide any mechanisms for the lifecycle management of AuthZ policies? a) Yes b) No 4) Does your authorization system provide any mechanisms for the sharing/distribution of AuthZ policies? a) Yes b) No Regards, - Anil From: dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of John, Anil Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:30 PM To: Shivaram Mysore; Tolbert, John W Cc: kantara Initiative Subject: Re: [Dg-concordia] AuthZ survey changes
"Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" - may be too heavy a statement.
Would respectfully disagree.. This is a clear and continuing issue, even after the XACML TC sponsored interop that happened at Burton Catalyst a couple of years ago. http://bit.ly/4NATB http://bit.ly/6HfEn I wrote the above two blog entries more than a year ago. AFAIK, this situation has not changed to any great degree (I am very willing, and hope that I will be, corrected on this!) If both my PEP vendor(s) (XML Security GW Vendors as well as Software based PEPs) as well as my PDP Vendors (Entitlement/Policy Decisioning engines) trumpet their support for XACML and their ability to exist in a standards based environment, why should I continue to pay for integration between a PEP and a PDP, especially if I've made a decision to externalize my AuthZ (The decision to do so and implement is, as noted, a continuing policy and education problem) ? Regards, - Anil From: dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-concordia-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Shivaram Mysore Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:03 PM To: Tolbert, John W Cc: kantara Initiative Subject: Re: [Dg-concordia] AuthZ survey changes PDP and PEP acronyms will need expansion. Real life examples in brackets would help. If the survey is for a business person, he would not understand PDP/PEP "Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" - may be too heavy a statement. IMHO if PEP and PDP must exist (it does not matter from which vendor they are as the IT has to pay the cost), then the real problem is application integration and migration. /Shivaram On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Tolbert, John W <john.w.tolbert@boeing.com<mailto:john.w.tolbert@boeing.com>> wrote: I've "simplified" the choices somewhat, and added a few items based on the feedback. Please review at your leisure. Thanks http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/concordia/Authorization+surv... _______________________________________________ Dg-concordia mailing list Dg-concordia@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:Dg-concordia@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-concordia -- Strong Authentication, SOA, Web Services, PKI, Software Architecture, Product Strategy and Management Consultants: http://www.truststix.com/