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

Re: [WAC] regexps in WebAccessControl

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:30:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m7Ne8PsVtSX4+VJxMEY7GYbqO3dyFXmrRVOgmOdWgBo=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
<snip>
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).
</snip>

yeah - sounds fine. my regrets for the side tracking as i misunderstood
Ruben's reply.

Cheers.

mca+1.859.757.1449
skype: mca.amundsen
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com/mamund
https://github.com/mamund
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen


On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> 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).
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:31:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:31:45 GMT