Hi Supun,

Let's assume in a Organization there are teams called Team A and Leadership.

There is a policy enforced to the team A that to disable cameras in their
devices, and some application polices to install Team A related apps to
their devices, but leadership team does not have that camera disable
restriction.

Let's assume the person called B who lead the Team A should also a member
of Leadership team. So camera block policy should not be applied to his
device.

if proposed suggestion 2 is implemented and trying to assign the policy to
B, it asks admin to change the polices either in Team A or Leadership to
resolve conflicts. I don't think it is the right solution.


On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Supun Wanniarachchi <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Existing CDMF device management policy enforcement implementation in EMM
> supports applying only one policy upon devices based on an
> administrator-defined priority order.
>
> For instance, assume an instance where two policies (mentioned below) are
> supposed to be applied on managed devices.
>
> 1. Disable camera on all android devices -> Policy_B
>
> 2. Disable wifi on all android devices which belong to role "user-group A"
> -> Policy_A
>
>
> If we take an android device which belongs to a user in user-group A,
> ideally, both the aforementioned policies should be applied on the said
> device. But due to the limitations in existing policy implementation, only
> the Policy_B (First policy in the priority list) will be applied as that’s
> what’s been prioritized by the policy priority order.
>
> New Feature for Composite Device Management Policies:
>
> This new feature helps merge discrete policies together and get composite
> effective policy without any conflicts. It should be enhanced further to be
> able to merge several of such discrete policies together (i.e camera
> disable, wifi disable) and enforce a composite effective policy upon
> managed devices.
>
> But considering the above example there will be conflicting situation
> happen when we are going to merge these policies.
>
> 1. Disable camera on all android devices -> Policy_B (Android, BYOD)
>
> 2. Enable camera on all devices which belong to role "user-group A" ->
> Policy_E (Android, ANY)
>
> In this case, it’s hard to find what’s the exact operation apply to the
> device when we are creating  effective policy. Previously there was not
> this kind of situation because only applied one policy using policy
> priority order.  Get rid of this issue we can do policy merging task as two
> different ways(Proposed suggestion 1, Proposed suggestion 2).
>
> *Proposed suggestion 1*:
>
> [image: emm2.jpg]
>
>    -
>
>    Use existing priority order and get the first applicable policy if
>    there’s any conflict situation.
>    -
>
>    Merge several of such discrete policies together and enforce a
>    composite effective policy to the device.
>
>
> *Proposed suggestion 2*:
>
> [image: emm.jpg]
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    User can add any number of policies for different ownership, role or
>    user and save. Without using using existing priority order.
>    -
>
>    But when we are doing “Apply changes to devices” event, it works as
>    above diagram.
>    -
>
>    Restrict to apply two conflicting policies for one device. If there’s
>    any conflicts, use the Resolution Mechanism for avoid these issues.
>
>
> Resolution Mechanism for conflicts policies
>
>
>    -
>
>    Mainly check the feature level of each policies. (i.e
>    Passcode,Restriction,Wifi,VPN). Check feature by feature if there’s
>    any conflicts(Features has different role sets).
>
>
>    -
>
>    Display conflicts policy details separately and allow user to change
>    the applicable policy of that particular role/user.
>
>
> In PDP there’s no any conflicts for both Proposed suggestion 1 and 2.
> Check whether which device get the effective policy and do policy merging
> process. Finally apply that effective policy for the device.
>
> I think *Proposed suggestion 2* is more effective way and Please share
> your thoughts on this.
>
>
> --
> Supun Wanniarachchi
> Intern
> WSO2, Inc.
>
> *Lean . Enterprise . Middleware *
> Mobile: +94 716326119
> Blog: http://blog.supun.me
> [image: https://lk.linkedin.com/in/supun-wanniarachchi-21b37a97]
> <https://lk.linkedin.com/in/supun-wanniarachchi-21b37a97>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Chatura Dilan Perera
*Associate Tech Lead** - WSO2 Inc.*
www.dilan.me
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to