W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [WAC] regexps in WebAccessControl

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:28:28 +0000
Message-ID: <50A928CC.7090508@webr3.org>
To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
CC: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
mike amundsen wrote:
> <snip>
> Extending slightly what Ruben wrote - Nothing wrong with it, that's what
> WebACL is - the proposal is to look at the lexical representation of the
> URI and base access control on whether the URI regexp matches not, or
> perhaps further, to base access control rules on specific server side
> directory structures which are only known behind the interface.
> </snip>
> the URL interface in most implementations I work on rarely has any
> (meaningful) relation to the storage model on the server. keep in mind most
> of the work i do treats URIs as transient identifiers, not meaningful
> names. I suspect that is why my POV may not match well with what's
> discussed here; fair enough.
> <snip>
> If we consider the case of generic data storage, then WebACL rules may
> often be sent sent by the client, for the server to apply to the resource,
> in relation to resources they control - would we want clients to have to
> know about implementation details hidden by the interface, such as
> directory structures (or even if there are directories!).
> </snip>
> based on a reply from Ruben, i think what we're on about here is an
> implementation/optimization detail and that's fine.  looks like i
> misunderstood Ruben's initial reply.
> in cases where you have some person in the role of defining security using
> a client app that has the power to apply security rules, i would *assume*
> that person *does* have knowledge about the URI structure in general (e.g.
> whether /admin/.* is a reasonable rule to apply to a URI space). if that's
> not the case (e.g. those applying rules have no knowledge of the URI space
> save the one URI they are attempting to secure), then certainly any use of
> regular expressions is a bad idea.
> again, these seem like implementation details local to the use case, but i
> might be missing the point.

Nope, that's it bang on - implementation details local to the use case, 
so the general question would be whether we want to cater for that in a 
WebACL schema/ontology/mediatype which gets developed, or whether it's 
something we're best staying silent on (don't preclude, but don't 
include specific provision for).


Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:29:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:04 UTC