Subject: Re: Access Control deferred?

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:35:37 -0800 (PST)

> From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Access Control deferred?
> 
> Yesterday during the meeting I asked about the conflict between the
> deferred items in section 4.9 and the apparent inclusion of security
> measures in the slides shown.  Can one of the document authors clarify this?
> 
> I am concerned that we are designing an access protocol without access
> control.  That would be unacceptable.  Clients need to provide a mechanism
> for users to allow or disallow access to their personal calendars, and
> relying on an administrator to take this action clearly does not scale.
> (We consider our organization's calendar users to number ~16,000)
> 
> The slides seemed to conflict with the draft.  If I'm merely confused, can
> someone clarify?

The thoughts were something like:

Access control will be submitted as a separate draft.
CAP must be able to pass these ACL objects back and forth.

It however will not be necessary for CAP to specify them.
Just as CAP does not specify the core objects.

> >4.9     Access Control (deferred)
> >
> >The ability to get and set access control data on calendars and
> >calendar components is useful, but beyond the scope of the initial
> >CAP specification. A CS may apply access control entries to calendars
> >and components, but CAP need not specify how these are to be set and
> >retrieved. Access control entries could be set and retrieved by
> >administrators on the CS through another protocol. Additionally, a CS
> >can enforce the class of each component, by restricting access to
> >"confidential" and "private" components, without any design in CAP to
> 
> -Bob
> >allow this.
> 

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://www.royer.com/People/Doug
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 11:00:58 -0500

Doug-

>Just as CAP does not specify the core objects.

Unless CAP is required to respect access control, this is insufficient.  We
can't specify an access protocol that doesn't have at least rudimentary
controls on who can read/write a user's calendar.

-Bob