I think so. There's a few things that you want to iron out first, before people start voting on this.
- 3 is generally the "minimum" number of mentors. - I can't find a "Paul Freemantle" on the apache committers list. There's a Paul Fremantle, minor spelling difference. - You may want to review this section to get a better understanding of the goals: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#formulating the Discuss option just helps everyone look at your proposal a little bit better and determine if there's any gotchas. For example, I'm surprised to see a new incubator project using SVN. - Can you list out your issue tracking preference (should probably be JIRA unless you need something else) - Please also explicitly list the mailing lists your want. John On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Hal Lockhart <hal.lockh...@oracle.com> wrote: > So you want me to repost the proposal with the Subject changed to start > with "[DISCUSS]"? Or should I simply reference the wiki page? > > Hal > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:03 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] OpenAZ as new Incubator project > > > > Hal, > > > > Per customs, would you mind if we cancel this and start with a > > [DISCUSS] thread about OpenAZ? It's unclear if you meant this to be a > > vote or something. > > > > John > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Hal Lockhart <hal.lockh...@oracle.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > OpenAz is a project to create tools and libraries to enable the > > > development of Attribute-based Access Control (ABAC) Systems in a > > > variety of languages. In general the work is at least consistent with > > > or actually conformant to the OASIS XACML Standard. > > > > > > Proposal > > > > > > Generally the work falls into two categories: ready to use tools > > which > > > implement standardized or well understood components of an ABAC > > system > > > and design proposals and proof of concept code relating to less well > > > understood or experimental aspects of the problem. > > > > > > Much of the work to date has revolved around defining interfaces > > > enabling a PEP to request an access control decision from a PDP. The > > > XACML standard defines an abstract request format in xml and protocol > > > wire formats in xaml and json, but it does not specify programmatic > > interfaces in any language. > > > The standard says that the use of XML (or JSON) is not required only > > > the semantics equivalent. > > > > > > The first Interface, AzAPI is modeled closely on the XACML defined > > > interface, expressed in Java. One of the goals was to support calls > > to > > > both a PDP local to the same process and a PDP in a remote server. > > > AzAPI includes the interface, reference code to handle things like > > the > > > many supported datatypes in XACML and glue code to mate it to the > > open > > > source Sun XACML implementation. > > > > > > Because of the dependence on Sun XACML (which is XACML 2.0) the > > > interface was missing some XACML 3.0 features. More recently this was > > > corrected and > > > WSo2 has mated it to their XACML 3.0 PDP. Some work was done by the > > > JPMC team to support calling a remote PDP. WSo2 is also pursuing this > > capability. > > > > > > A second, higher level interface, PEPAPI was also defined. PEPAPI is > > > more intended for application developers with little knowledge of > > > XACML. It allows Java objects which contain attribute information to > > be passed in. > > > Conversion methods, called mappers extract information from the > > > objects and present it in the format expected by XACML. Some > > > implementers have chosen to implement PEPAPI directly against their > > PDP, omitting the use of AzAPI. > > > Naomaru Itoi defined a C++ interface which closely matches the Java > > one. > > > > > > Examples of more speculative work include: proposals for registration > > > and dispatch of Obligation and Advice handlers, a scheme called AMF > > to > > > tell PIPs how to retrieve attributes and PIP code to implement it, > > > discussion of PoC code to demonstrate the use of XACML policies to > > > drive OAuth interations and a proposal to use XACML policies to > > express OAuth scope. > > > > > > AT&T has recently contributed their extensive XACML framework to the > > > project. > > > > > > The AT&T framework represents the entire XACML 3.0 object set as a > > > collection of Java interfaces and standard implementations of those > > > interfaces. The AT&T PDP engine is built on top of this framework > > and > > > represents a complete implementation of a XACML 3.0 PDP, including > > all > > > of the multi-decision profiles. In addition, the framework also > > > contains an implementation of the OASIS XACML 3.0 RESTful API v1.0 > > and > > > XACML JSON Profile v1.0 WD 14. The PEP API includes annotation > > > functionality, allowing application developers to simply annotate a > > > Java class to provide attributes for a request. The annotation > > support > > > removes the need for application developers to learn much of the API. > > > > > > The AT&T framework also includes interfaces and implementations to > > > standardize development of PIP engines that are used by the AT&T PDP > > > implementation, and can be used by other implementations built on top > > > of the AT&T framework. The framework also includes interfaces and > > > implementations for a PAP distributed cloud infrastructure of PDP > > > nodes that includes support for policy distribution and pip > > > configurations. This PAP infrastructure includes a web application > > > administrative console that contains a XACML 3.0 policy editor, > > > attribute dictionary support, and management of PDP RESTful node > > > instances. In addition, there are tools available for policy > > simulation. > > > > > > Background > > > > > > Access Control is in some ways the most basic IT Security service. It > > > consists of making a decision about whether a particular request > > > should be allowed and enforcing that decision. Aside from schemes > > like > > > permission bits and Access Control Lists (ACLs) the most common way > > > access control is implemented is as code in a server or application > > > which typically intertwines access control logic with business logic, > > > User interface and other software. This makes it difficult to > > > understand, modify, analyze or even locate the security policy. The > > > primary challenge of Access Control is striking the right balance > > > between powerful expression and intelligibility to human beings. > > > > > > The OASIS XACML Standard exemplifies Attribute-Based Access Control > > > (ABAC). In ABAC, the Policy Decision Point (PDP) is isolated from > > > other components. The Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) must be located > > > so as to be able to enforce the decision, typically near the > > resource. > > > The PEP first asks the PDP if access should be allowed and provides > > > data, in the form of Attributes, to be used as input to the policies > > held by the PDP. > > > > > > In addition to responding permit or deny, XACML allows a policy to > > > emit Obligations or Advice, which direct the PEP to do certain > > things, > > > such logging the access or failure or promising to get rid of the > > data > > > after 30 days. > > > > > > Attributes are identified as being in a certain category which > > > represents one element in the proposed access. For example attributes > > > may be associated with the resource being accessed, the action being > > > taken or the environment, .e.g. date/time. Attributes may also be > > > associated with any or several types of Subjects, which represent the > > > active parties to the access, such as the requester, intermediaries, > > > the recipient (if different), the codebase, the machine executing the > > code. > > > > > > Attributes may be provided by the PEP and usually at least a few are, > > > but Attributes may also added by other components of the system. It > > is > > > also possible for a PDP to add attributes in the middle of policy > > evaluation. > > > All of these obtain Attributes from the Policy Information Point > > (PIP). > > > > > > The Policy Administration Point (PAP) creates policies and manages > > > then through their life cycles and generally the entire > > infrastructure. > > > > > > The XACML language is essentially a set of expressions which evaluate > > > to a Boolean. If true the policy is said to be applicable. The Policy > > > contains permit or deny and may include Permissions and or Advice. If > > > policies disagree we resolve the conflict with combining algorithms. > > > XACML provides some standard ones and you can implement your own. > > > Mostly they are common sense like drop non-applicable polices. A > > > commonly used algorithm is default deny. Deny overrides permit. > > > > > > Rationale > > > > > > Access Control may be the most basic security service, but for the > > > most part it remains primitive in practice. While other services like > > > message protection and authentication have seen many advances in > > > recent years and decades, deployed access control systems are opaque, > > > difficult to us and harder to manage. Most organizations claim that > > > they have security policies, protect privacy and accurately report > > > financial results, but in practice they have no real way of > > > discovering whether their systems actually behave the way they are > > alleged to do. > > > > > > Just the foreground problems relating to deploying practical ABAC > > > systems make a formidable list. If only the PDP knows what the > > > policies are, how do we make sure it gets the attributes it needs to > > > evaluate policies? How can we name organize, register and dispatch > > > Obligations and Advice, allowing handlers to be provided by the > > system > > > and added by users? How can the XACML > > > 3.0 feature of being able to create your own attribute categories > > best > > > be supported by the infrastructure and utilized by users? What are > > the > > > best ways to create and test policies? What tools will best help us > > > analyze the effects of the policies in force? > > > > > > However, new requirements are rapidly being introduced and need to be > > met. > > > Privacy requirements continue to increase in complexity and scope. > > > Data which moves around, such as documents, need to be protected. We > > > need secure ways to delegate authority without undermining the > > > integrity of the access control system. New applications, business > > and > > > social relationships are driving the need for new policy and > > delegation capabilities. > > > > > > We believe that the way to meet these challenges is to get more > > people > > > actively engaged in using what is currently available so they can > > > understand its limitations and make it better. We need to make it far > > > easier to get a basic access control infrastructure up and running. > > We > > > need more people who are familiar with XACML the way many people are > > > familiar with SQL. If as some people say, XACML is the assembly > > > language of access control, we need the real world experience with it > > > that will lead us to the useful abstractions that can be implemented > > > in higher level languages and other tools. > > > > > > Initial Goals > > > > > > Work is currently underway to extend the PEPAPI and increase its > > > flexibility. Since it does not directly correspond to any standard > > the > > > way AzAPI does, it is necessary to struggle with the issues of what > > to > > > expose and what to hide from consumers of the API. > > > > > > Other work in progress involves the architecture of Obligations and > > > Advice. There is also an effort to develop a remote client which can > > > easily be dropped into any Java environment and make decision > > requests > > > of any commercial or open source XACML PDP. > > > > > > The contribution of AT&T's framework creates a need to integrate the > > > prior work with it. Most of the focus will be on AzAPI and the > > > corresponding AT&T API, which do largely the same thing. The result > > is > > > likely to be a synthesis, since each has features the other lacks. > > > Then PEPAPI will need to be integrated with the new API. The AT&T PDP > > > and PAP will be incorporated as is. There has been some parallel work > > > done in the area of PIPs. Work will be required to understand how to > > proceed here. > > > > > > Current Status > > > > > > Meritocracy > > > > > > The project was started by Prateek Mishra, Rich Levinson and Hal > > > Lockhart in 2010. Rich Levinson wrote most of the AzAPI and PEPAPI > > > code. Naomaru Itoi defined the C++ version of the PEPAPI. In 2013 > > > Duanhua Tu and Ajith Nair contributed code both using and extending > > > AzAPI and PEPAPI and incorporating PIPs using the AMF as originally > > > proposed by Hal Lockhart. In > > > 2013 Erik Rissanen, Srijith Nair and Rich Levinson updated AzAPI to > > > include all XACML 3.0 features. In 2014 Pam Dragosh and Chris Rath > > > contributed the XACML infrastructure they had developed at AT&T. > > > > > > During most of its history the project has been very small and has > > > made decisions by informal consensus. Major design issues have been > > > decided by open debate. Minor issues and experimental proposals have > > > been openly welcomed. Several of the participants have a background > > in > > > open consensus-based standards making. > > > > > > In addition to the mailing list, the project has regular phone calls > > > every other Thursday. > > > > > > Community > > > > > > The original focus of the project was to attract developers of XACML > > > products, either individuals or corporations, and to build alignment > > > among vendors on a common API that could simplify technical > > > integration for their customers. As OpenAz has matured, our > > community > > > has grown to include application developers working to adopt and > > deploy XACML in their > > > applications. So, for example, contributions reflect what > > individual > > > developers have learned in vertical industries such as financial > > > services, healthcare, and computing and communications services, and > > > our APIs and internal component architecture have evolved to reflect > > a > > > strong practical understanding of what it takes to deploy XACML > > > applications in a large organization. > > > > > > Core Developers > > > > > > The following developers have written most of the code to date. > > > > > > Pam Dragosh <pdragosh at research dot att dot com> Rich Levinson < > > > rich.levinson at oracle dot com> Ajith Nair <ajithkumar.r.nair at > > > jpmchase dot com> Chris Rath <car at research dot att dot com> > > Duanhua > > > Tu <duanhua.tu at jpmchase dot com> > > > > > > The following people made other significant technical contributions. > > > > > > David Laurence <david.c.laurance at jpmorgan dot com> Hal Lockhart > > > <hal.lockhart at oracle dot com> Prateek Mishra prateek.mishra at > > > oracle dot com> > > > > > > > > > Alignment > > > > > > It has always been a goal to make OpenAz an Apache project. The > > Apache > > > license was used for all contributions. We believe the project has > > now > > > reached a critical size in terms of developers, organizations and > > > contributed code to make it appropriate to make a proposal to the > > Incubator. > > > > > > Known Risks > > > > > > Orphaned Projects > > > > > > Given the small size of the project, there is a risk of the project > > > being orphaned. There seems to be strong interest in the use of our > > > tools, which should markedly increase with the contribution of the > > > AT&T code. "Where can I get an open source PDP?" and "where can I get > > > an open source policy editor?" are frequent questions on XACML > > mailing lists. > > > > > > Inexperience with Open Source > > > > > > While few of the developers have extensive experience with open > > > source, a number of us have long experience in standards making in > > > open consensus-based environments. For example the XACML TC has > > > operated since > > > 2001 based on consensus building, with few, if any votes which were > > > not unanimous. The main challenge to the project will be managing the > > > process with more participants and a more formal process. > > > > > > Homogeneous Developers > > > > > > Currently all the contributors are employees either of companies > > > offering an XACML product or large end users deploying XACML > > > technology for internal use. The positive aspect is that they are all > > > highly experienced senior developers used to operating in a > > > disciplined environment. The disadvantage is that the focus to date > > > has mostly been problems that arise in large scale environments > > typified by the infrastructure of large corporations. > > > > > > Reliance on Salaried Developers > > > > > > All current committers are salaried developers. However the > > > organizations they work for have a long term commitment to the > > > technology. We hope that in the Apache foundation we will be able to > > > attract new developers to help us address the many fascinating > > > unsolved technological problems associated with deploying ABAC. > > > > > > Relationship with other Apache Projects > > > > > > As far as we can determine, no existing Apache project overlaps with > > > OpenAz in its goals of the technology developed so far. However, > > > beyond the immediate project goals there are many potential > > > opportunities for integration with existing Apache projects. Shiro, > > > Turbine and WSS4J are Java frameworks which could incorporate XACML > > as > > > the policy language using OpenAz components. Manifold CF, Qpid and > > > Archiva already have hooks to incorporate external access control > > systems. > > > > > > > > > An Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand > > > > > > We hope that becoming an Apache project will not only attract new > > > participants to OpenAz, but will draw attention to the neglected > > field > > > of access control. As previously stated it has always been our goal > > to > > > join Apache, the only question was when the time was ripe. > > > > > > Documentation > > > > > > The OpenAz web site is: > > > > > > http://www.openliberty.org/wiki/index.php/OpenAz_Main_Page > > > > > > Java docs can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > http://openaz.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openaz/trunk/openaz/test/doc/ > > > index.html > > > > > > > > > Initial Source > > > > > > The AzAPI, PEPAPI and other related code can be found on sourceforge: > > > > > > http://openaz.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openaz/ > > > > > > > > > AT&T's framework can be found on github: > > > > > > https://github.com/att/XACML > > > > > > > > > Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan > > > > > > TBD > > > > > > External Dependencies > > > > > > There aren't any we are aware of. The AT&T software is available > > under > > > the MIT license, but that seems to be permissible under Apache rules. > > > > > > Cryptography > > > > > > OpenAz does not provide any cryptographic capabilities. The XACML > > > Standard does specify some uses of cryptography directly, e.g. > > digital > > > signatures over policies and others by implication, e.g. > > > authentication via cryptography. > > > > > > Required Resources > > > > > > Mailing lists > > > > > > The standard lists should be sufficient at the current time. > > > > > > Subversion Directory > > > > > > We propose: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openaz > > > > > > Issue Tracking > > > > > > TBD > > > > > > Initial Committers > > > > > > Rich Levinson > > > Hal Lockhart > > > Prateek Mishra > > > David Laurance > > > Duanhua Tu > > > Ajith Nair > > > Srijith Nair > > > Pam Dragosh > > > Chris Rath > > > > > > > > > Affiliations > > > > > > Rich Levinson, Hal Lockhart and Prateek Mishra work for Oracle. David > > > Laurance, Duanhua Tu and Ajith Nair work for JP Morgan-Chase. Srijith > > > Nair works for Axiomatics. Pam Dragosh and Chris Rath work for AT&T. > > > > > > Sponsors > > > > > > Champion > > > Paul Freemantle > > > > > > Nominated Mentors > > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > > Colm MacCárthaigh > > > > > > Sponsoring Entity > > > The Sponsoring Entity will be the Incubator. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
