Hi Madhan,
My thoughts on the 3 points are :
1) It would seem to me that we should have one way of identifying users at 
the metadata layer and any normalisation or mapping should be done prior 
to this so that users are uniquely identified in an organization in the 
policy / metadata layer..
2)  You say "Wouldn't it be more flexible to allow different set of users 
to edit and classify entities? Similar to the following scenario." I think 
it is not an 'or ' situation but an 'and'.  I think it is beneficial to 
restrict based on a list of users as you suggest. It is also useful to be 
able to have some principles  as Mandy suggests, so if you have certain 
access rights then you get other access rights by virtual of a policy. 
Having these principles expressed in policies means that the policies can 
be simpler and more naturally expressed. 
3) Agreed.

  all the best, David. 



From:   Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
To:     "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date:   16/02/2018 02:23
Subject:        Re: Metadata security policies examples



Mandy,

> edit access is limited to the user identified in the createdBy property.
It will be possible to support authorization as above. However, there are 
few issues to be aware of in such approach. For example:
 - 'createdBy' property may not be present in all entity-types
 - the username in 'createdBy' property might have to be normalized or 
mapped, to be able to compare with the username logged into Atlas.
   - for example [email protected] vs jscott
I would recommend to handle such username normalization/mapping in a later 
phase.

> where a classification can only be added to an entity by a user that has 
edit access to the entity.
> where a classification can only be added to any entity by a user with 
create rights on the classification.
Wouldn't it be more flexible to allow different set of users to edit and 
classify entities? Similar to the following scenario.

> where edit access to an entity is required before a relationship can 
connect it to something else
> and it would be good from a graph decoupling point of view if adding 
relationships could be done independently of the access rights to either 
entity.
I agree on decoupling authorization to create relationship from access 
rights to the entities at both ends.

Thanks,
Madhan

On 2/14/18, 10:06 AM, "Mandy Chessell" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

    Hello Madhan,
    I was thinking through our common use cases for metadata security. For 

    most metadata entities and relationships, we would want to enforce 
that 
    metadata is readable by logged on users but edit access is limited to 
the 
    user identified in the createdBy property. 
 
    Then we have special cases for entities such as connections and some 
    governance actions.
    For example there may be a connection to an audit log and that can 
only be 
    seen by members of the security team since having access to the 
connection 
    means you can connect to the data store.
    Some governance actions may be updateable by anyone in the governance 
team 
    - not just the creator.
 
    When it comes to classifications, we have 2 scenarios 
    - where a classification can only be added to an entity by a user that 
has 
    edit access to the entity.
    - where a classification can only be added to any entity by a user 
with 
    create rights on the classification.
 
    I was trying to think through similar examples for relationships - for 

    example, where edit access to an entity is required before a 
relationship 
    can connect it to something else - but I can't think of one - and it 
would 
    be good from a graph decoupling point of view if adding relationships 
    could be done independently of the access rights to either entity.
 
    All the best
    Mandy
    ___________________________________________
    Mandy Chessell CBE FREng CEng FBCS
    IBM Distinguished Engineer
 
    Master Inventor
    Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
    Visiting Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of 
    Sheffield
 
    Email: [email protected]
    LinkedIn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_pub_mandy-2Dchessell_22_897_a49&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=QhpUQPr5YlG95aAgCvZGStEXHg4hBbSYQ9JkRqR_svY&m=Qa-FKldwlfxLK0OygoMR9IopavMa6ccJ81Xtg4l11cs&s=20HZiMDEZtwudUrz9j12W32Kb8AklTGhbNDPAg5AN6s&e=

 
    Assistant: Janet Brooks - [email protected]





Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Reply via email to