Re: Issue 71, Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND is used

I think that BINDing's across security domains will in practice only 
occur across multiple instances of a product from a single vendor.  In 
those cases, I don't see why a BINDing across across security domain 
will necessarily behave any differently. 

--Eric

Elias Sinderson wrote:

>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> [...] most of the open Bugzilla issues should have been closed [...]
>
>
> 71, Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND 
> is used
> As ACLs are defined on resources, not bindings, I don't see how the 
> spec can say much that hasn't already been said. There are, however, 
> potential issues with bindings across different security domains. If 
> anything, I would advocate a restrictive approach to permissions. That 
> is, permissions on bindings SHOULD default to those of the resource 
> where possible, but MAY be restricted when bindings are made across 
> namespaces with different permissions. Permissions MUST NOT be granted 
> or extended in the above scenario. As I see it, this is the prudent 
> thing to do in this situation. The only other option would be to 
> forbid bindings across security domains that cannot maintain the 
> existing permissions exactly as they are on the resource (if, for 
> example, a given principledid not exist and could not be created).
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Best,
> Elias
>