1 / 5

Open Issue: Naming

Open Issue: Naming. Currently, defines protocol-specific identities, rather than generic ones Some protocols (SIP, XMPP, …) naturally have user identities in URIs sip:alice@example.com ftp:hgs:pw@ftp.example.com May not be the same as ID used to authenticate (e.g., HTTP/SIP Digest identity)

llaliberte
Télécharger la présentation

Open Issue: Naming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Open Issue: Naming • Currently, defines protocol-specific identities, rather than generic ones • Some protocols (SIP, XMPP, …) naturally have user identities in URIs • sip:alice@example.com • ftp:hgs:pw@ftp.example.com • May not be the same as ID used to authenticate (e.g., HTTP/SIP Digest identity) • one authentication identity may allow for multiple protocol (e.g., SIP) identities • No obvious way to encode for HTTP • needs: host, realm (?), username • fake: http:alice@www.example.com • new URI scheme •  all ugly • Probably need to define this for each using protocol

  2. Open Issue: Domains and Individuals • Currently, only identities represented as URIs • XCAP has notion of domain match, e.g., sip:example.com • Somewhat complicates matching, but otherwise no architectural implications • Not all authentication systems have notion of user@domain, but many do in practice

  3. Open Issue: Exceptions • Exceptions only useful if domains (or groups) allowed • domains: probably most useful for mid-size organizations • small organizations can enumerate • really large organizations unlikely (give access to all my 753,000 fellow postal employees?) • Two kinds of exceptions: • atomic = always part of the same rule • in particular, must be very careful about replacing just exception element  temporarily unsafe • override = different rule, overrides more general rule • Override breaks additive model • privacy-unsafe if rule cannot be accessed

  4. Exceptions, cont’d. • Atomic exceptions simply limit matching and are probably ok • Need to be sure we understand cases like: • Rule 1: example.com except alice@except.com • Rule 2: example.com except bob@example.com • What permissions does Bob get? • If ‘Rule 1’, easy.

  5. Open Issue: Relationship to XCAP • XCAP  transport (HTTP) + data (list) + manipulation • GEOPRIV has more general model: • carried in LO  may not be HTTP • no requirement that RM-LS interface is HTTP • Tying data and list format together seems unnecessary

More Related