Re: Access Control Draft

To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Access Control Draft
From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
cc: howard.s.modell@boeing.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From w3c-dist-auth-request@www10.w3.org Mon May 19 17: 44:45 1997
In-Reply-To: <afa65f92040210048681@[128.195.21.209]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970519143606.24544A-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
Sender: gjw@best.com
X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs
X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/
X-See-Also: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring
X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/

I agree that our approach to access control should not imply a set of
roles which are too specific to a particular application or document
management strategy. Instead, I think we should adopt a general scheme
such as UNIX-style groups, VMS style privileges and rights, or our system
of keys. Any one of these schemes would suit our needs without locking us
into a specific set of roles.

---
Gregory Woodhouse
gjw@wnetc.com    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.

References:

Re: Access Control Draft

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>

Prev: Re: Access Control Draft
Next: Requirements Changes for Your Review
Index: Message index of w3c-dist-auth@w3.org mailing list
Thread: Thread index of w3c-dist-auth@w3.org mailing list