Folks,
At the last Council meeting, I entered a position of -1 concerning
Privileged Entity:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/privilege-component.html
In order to explain my position better, it's worth examining how
authorization systems currently model the world. I'm going to use XACML
terms
Hi Dave,
even if I understand your point of view, I have the feeling to see the famous
XKCD strip: let's do a new standard which cover everyones use cases
(situation: 15 competing standards) !
The XACML protocol is more than 150 pages, I can't see any XEP adapting this
to XMPP coming before
On 16 Dec 2014 18:03, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
even if I understand your point of view, I have the feeling to see the
famous
XKCD strip: let's do a new standard which cover everyones use cases
(situation: 15 competing standards) !
That's actually what I'm trying to avoid; we currently
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject.
While I have not formed a particular opinion with regards to the ProtoXEP
worthiness to become a XEP or not as I simply have not read it, I am generally
of the opinion that
On 16 December 2014 at 18:24, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject.
While I have not formed a particular opinion with regards to the ProtoXEP
worthiness to become
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 18:24, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
mailto:kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Goffi go...@goffi.org
mailto:go...@goffi.org wrote:
I'm curious to
On 16 Dec 2014 20:23, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
You have provided no suggestions to the authors of how they might take
change the ProtoXEP to address your objections.
Okay, I thought I had given the general actions I'd like to see, but I'll
rephrase.
The specification
On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On 16 Dec 2014 20:23, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
mailto:kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
You have provided no suggestions to the authors of how they might take
change the ProtoXEP to address your objections.
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to
clarify an existing protocol?
It removes several sources of ambiguity from XEP-0256, which have been
discussed on standards@ before (e.g.,
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-October/026887.html)
2.
On 16 Dec 2014 21:21, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
And can I draw the conclusion you think XACML is the “standard industry
model and terms” specification that you want this work “recast” in?
No, but it uses the same ABAC model as of NIST and others. None of these
specifications
On 16 December 2014 at 22:05, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On 16 Dec 2014 21:21, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
And can I draw the conclusion you think XACML is the “standard industry
model and terms” specification that you want this work “recast” in?
No, but it uses
While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a step
back and consider model and terminology issues, in your latest comments, it
seems more that you want the authors to adopt a this model and terminology you
originally wanted “we” to consider.
While I would not have
12 matches
Mail list logo
