XACML Policy Model Conf call notes: 

Date: 26 November, 2001
Attendees: Hal, Jason Rewald (hp) Pier,  Ernesto, Tim Moses, Carslile,  Simon, Fred Moses
Minutes: Simon Godik
 

Ernesto:
We need to insert  explanation in plain english inside Tim�fs doc. We should resolve inconsistencies  between documents.

Hal: By having information  in 2 places we do not know which to address.

Tim: We want to complete the  model work.

Hal: 2 points of view: model  first, model and expression go hand in hand.

Pier: I�fm not worried about  syntax and looking at the model.

Tim: 2 concrete schemas to  look at. We can try to restrict discussion to the model keeping in mind that we  have some schema.

Pier: I want to put focus on  the expressiveness of the syntax.

Tim: We have to decide how  to reconcile plain language discussion of the  model.

Hal: I�fd like to see  glossary separate and charter separate.

Pier: My document summarises  conf calls and what we discussed. It keeps track of discussions and decisions we  took. If we go at the finer level we may loose policy model  focus.

Tim: Final document would  include dictionary and policy model in the same document. Glossary contains  policy model terms.

Hal: I do not object to that  for the time being.

Ernesto: In the last con  call we agreed that we need plain english description of the model. That what I  see in the Tim�fs document. Pier�fs document is an outline of the model where  discussion is made without any reference to uml. These docs should be integrated  before we go any further.

Tim: Do you feel that Pier  doc would serve as an introduction?

Ernesto: It�fs an outline of  the model. I do not see to many inconsistencies.

Hal: Pier�fs doc has 2  sections. Sec 1 is a charter. Sec 2 can be integrated into larger document  called language model.

Pier: Inconsistencies should  be resolved. For the time being let�fs look at the model and concepts what we  should represent. My document contains results from 4-5 subcommeetee  meetings.

Hal: How do we go forward?  Which documents we should comment on? I would like to see some kind of  conversion.

Tim: Let�fs aim at one  document.

Pier: We almost done with  the model.

Hal: I disagree. What is a  role? A rule? An attribute and so on. Let�fs try to put them together. I�fll file  comments on both.

Pier: If we have single  document it�fs complicated to update.

Tim: There was a committee  formed to discuss glossary. We did not have a formal vote. That terminology  implies a model reflected in the uml. When pm meet last Monday there was a  feeling that uml diagram is satisfactory but plain english is  missing.

Tim: I think it�fs important  that we have all material in front of us. I can take Pier part 2 and introduce  it into my document, make it available to everybody. I will highligt  inconsistencies and we can choose to meet again next Monday or maybe  Thursday.

Hal: It would be useful to  identify specific topics before the call.

Tim: I�fm hoping that we  would discover 3-4 inconsistencies and have them as a discussion items. Are we  talking Thursday on next Monday.

Carl: How is it different  from the issues list?

Hal: There is no sharp  distinction.

Ernesto: We started with the  specific proposal about reconciliation between 2 docs. Tim offered to do  reconciliation work. Pier will be travelling during the week. She could also  take a look at the Tim�fs document.

Pier: It�fs fine if Tim will  make a single document. If we get lost in the complete document with syntax etc  we may loose track of important issues.

Hal: First few diagrams are  not specific to the syntax of the schema.

Tim: My attitude was that it  in 2 parts. After pg 11 it�fs for the interested reader. Pgs 4-11 are policy  model.

Pier: As long as Tim�fs doc  covers all decisions we took in the pm subcom�c

Tim: It�fs my  intention.

Ernesto: I would like to use  Pier doc as an outline. What Tim offered to do is not wasting time. Insert Pier  content at pg 5 and Tim will point out  inconsistencies.

Carlisle: It sounds like a  useful excersise.

Pier: My document is not a  proposal but summary. What�fs written here is something we agree on or  disagree.

Ernesto: I sustain proposal  on making 2 different sections.

Hal: I agree with Tim�fs idea  on complete outline.

Tim: I�fll complete merge by  12 eastern tomorrow.

Open discussion: hierarchy  support in xacml, groups versus roles in the syntax (and their associated  semantics), protecting document content.