directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:59:36 GMT

On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Ersin Er wrote:

> Hi (David),
> I have two simple connected questions:
> Is JACC basically a RBAC (Role Based Access Control) system?
> If it's, do you think its model can be mapped onto the following  
> RBAC model:
> ?
> The NIST model for RBAC is quite sophisticated and can meet most of
> the RBAC model requirements. We cannot implement this fast and it's
> not our first priority but I am just dropping an email to keep this in
> mind. We would also like to support XACML and its RBAC module in the
> future so we'll have a stable core and a service layer that can easily
> be adopted by providers as JACC. Lots of TODO.. :-)

It took me a long time to actually read the paper.. still not quite  
done.  I think we should be careful to make sure triplesec is  
consistent with the NIST model and implement as much as we can to  
start with.

JACC basically makes the role >> permission mapping specified in the  
j2ee/jee deployment descriptors somewhat more explicit, in particular  
specifying the java classes for the permissions.  It leaves the  
identity >> role mapping up to the implementation.  I'd say it's  
consistent with RBAC but not the whole story.

I'm thinking that perhaps we could implement the role hierarchy  
features of the NIST model by combining the role and profile object  
classes: i.e. each role could have subsidiary roles as well as  
granted and denied permissions.  This might simplify the data model  
as well as making it more powerful.  I haven't read the admin  
features part of the model yet.... this seems likely to be the hard  

It does seem to me that with a role hierarchy it's only necessary for  
a user to be in one role at a time, since you can define the set of  
roles they are in to be yet another role.

I talked a bit with Alex about the user <> role association and I  
still don't think we've found a good solution: I'm not very happy  
with the current restriction of 1 user for a profile but don't really  
have a better idea.  I don't yet see groups as providing a big  

david jencks

> Cheers,
> -- 
> Ersin

View raw message