Friday, April 15, 2005

One long over due response

Aldo asked:

Andy,Regarding:"'Typed Links' tell the XDI Engine to treat the link as special. the most common use of this is the $op* group ($get, $set, ...) that are used to link a contract to the data it permissions AND specifies, via the Link Synonym, what that permission is."I'm imaging a scenario where I've slapped a "$op*" to a piece of data that I own in order to allow another party to "$get" it. Now what happens when I would like to allow another person (from another "Authority domain") access to that same data? Does this require that I add another "$op*" link to that data (I'm thinking in terms of Contract Law (formation of a valid contract). Is there a potential problem if the data to which I allowed "X" access under a condition that "Y" doesn't get access to it? If I can just add another "$op*" how would "X" ever know that I've given "Y" access? Perhaps this is what you refer to in your presentation as a "collision"?Thanks as always for any info.

I think there's a couple of questions in here that I can answer;

The 3 questions I think I see are:

1) What is the mechanism for providing access to the same data for more than 1 person?

Once you have established a contract that provides access (a combination of set, get and delete) to a specific set of data you can connect as many instances of $link to that contract as you like. The signed copies of the contract hang off the $link instance not the $contract instance so each permissioned person has their own signed copy of the contract. You can permission all of the members of a community via a single $link instance, in this case when a member of that community actually accesses the data and signs a contract a new instance of $link is created specifically for that individual where the signed contract can be kept.


2) What is to stop the person I have given access from 'passing-on' access to others?

Rights paths always start with a segment that identifies who can use that rights path (=andy/($link)/(=aldo)) will only pass validation if the requester can provide an assertion that they are =aldo. However the same syntax the permissions community members also acts as a ‘forwarding’ permission. If @ootao* is the syntax for ‘any i-name delegated from @ooTao’ then by granting rights to @ooTao* I am giving the administrator of the @ooTao community implicit rights to provide access into my data by adding or removing members of the ooTao community. Similarly providing access to =aldo* would give =aldo access to my data and also people that aldo trusts.


3) What control does the consumer of the data have over the provider of the data?

At this point, none. As I have understood it so far there is no explicit provision at the XDI level to enforce the data provider to sign a contract. With that said, it wouldn’t be hard to model an application that required a signed signature at the application logic level. The application could even use the XDI contract negotiation mechanisms to implement the requirement.

1 comment:

=Aldo.Castaneda said...

Andy,

Thanks for your responses.

I guess I'm still wondering whether XRI/XDI can handle a situation where I the owner of "x" data resource sign a contract with "y" person to provide exclusive (as to others) access to "x".

Is there a way for me to ensure to "y" that only "y" and I will have access to it?

Put another way, how would "y" know that I have added a new link contract relative to "x"? Is there some way to "lock down" the contact that provides access to "x" to all other's accept "y" and I?