Re: Barring Bros Was:Re: SLL protocol implementation ?

• To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
• Subject: Re: Barring Bros Was:Re: SLL protocol implementation ?
• From: zurko@osf.org (Mary Ellen Zurko)
• Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 12:53:54 EST
• Cc: zurko@osf.org (Me)
• In-Reply-To: <95Feb28.120626+0900_met.63660-2+4@dxal18.cern.ch>; from "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" at Feb 28, 95 12:06 (noon)
• Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
• Reply-To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu

> Practical Model:
> 
> Real stock markets are more complex. Particularly with respect to selling 
> options where the losses are open ended. The set of attributes must be 
> determined to fit. The key point is that the attribute set must be given a fixed 
> semantics by all the parties. There are two main options here :-
> 
> 1) The stock market board sets the attribute semantics.
> 
> 2) Each company may define their own semantics.
> 
> (1) is easiest to implement, (2) is easiest to administer. What is actually 
> needed is a set of Meta semantics which allow the creation of a semantics which 
> fits the application. 

Just where are the semantics encoded? Some sort of default
authorization engine? Some standard set of operations, and a function
involving those ops, attribute values, and values associated with the
request to be processed?
	Mez

• Re: Barring Bros Was:Re: SLL protocol implementation ?
• From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@dxal18.cern.ch>

• Barring Bros Was:Re: SLL protocol implementation ?
• From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@dxal18.cern.ch>

• Previous: Re: SLL protocol implementation ?
• Next: Re: SLL protocol implementation ?
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread