W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1997

RE: Access Control Draft

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502BD4BF4@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I would add
3) how does an author DISCOVER the access policy of a resource
4) how are principals identified

BTW a forms based solution is not sufficient. As specified in the design
principals, all DAV mechanisms must be fully machine processable. HTML
forms do not meet this definition. Still, simpler is better. We don't
need to solve the world's problems, we just need to solve DAV's problems
in such a way that others can come along later and build upon our work
to solve the world's problems.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Friday, May 16, 1997 3:54 PM
> To:	Jim Whitehead
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Access Control Draft
> 
> I actually thought that you could ignore access control completely
> except for two things:
> 
> 1) how does an author CHANGE the access policy of a resource
> 2) how does an author SPECIFY the access policy of a new resource
> 
> and that (2) could be defined as
>    Inherit the default access policy and then do (1)
>    (There's an unfortunate window when items have the wrong
>     access policy).
> 
> However, it should be possible to do (1) and (2) for a wide
> range of different kinds of access policies.
> 
> It might be that every resource has a related linked resource
> which is its access policy, and that the access policy could
> be retrieved as text/html (in which case you would get a form
> that would allow you to modify it, if you were so authorized)
> or as some other representation (which a program that was
> knowledgable about the structure of access policies on the
> particular server would be able to directly manipulate it).
> 
> It might be that access policies should be linked to 'realms'
> rather than 'resources' where a 'realm' was some well-defined
> extension set of resources.
> 
> I'm not sure how the discussion got off into APIs and CORBA,
> though.
> 
> Larry
> --
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
> 
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 14:40:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT