<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Field Trip to the Planetarium: Delegation, Authorization Documents, and Auditing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/</link>
	<description>&#34;I&#039;ve proven who I am so many times the magnetic strip&#039;s worn thin&#34; -- &#34;Pacing the Cage&#34; by Bruce Cockburn</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:04:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim Cameron&#8217;s Identity Weblog &#187; Delegation tokens and impersonation</title>
		<link>http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/comment-page-1/#comment-1345</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim Cameron&#8217;s Identity Weblog &#187; Delegation tokens and impersonation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/#comment-1345</guid>
		<description>[...] Delegation tokens  Delegation tokens, as you&#8217;ve described them, (according to one of Dale Old&#8217;s recent posts) are not yet implemented in CardSpace.  Is that accurate? Is it soon to be added to specification or is it still a work in progress? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Delegation tokens  Delegation tokens, as you&#8217;ve described them, (according to one of Dale Old&#8217;s recent posts) are not yet implemented in CardSpace.  Is that accurate? Is it soon to be added to specification or is it still a work in progress? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Norman</title>
		<link>http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/comment-page-1/#comment-1137</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Norman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtualsoul.org/blog/2007/03/09/a-field-trip-to-the-planetarium-delegation-authorization-documents-and-auditing/#comment-1137</guid>
		<description>I suspect that the concepts of delegation, accountability, and auditing constitute a very large and very fertile territory that is as yet unexplored.  The notion has been proposed that someone should delegate their privileges to a service to act on their behalf in their absence.  I can imagine that such a service would then re-delegate to some other service and so on.  This seems like it could get real messy in a hurry.  How many log files or receipts will an auditor need to round up and correlate to get a record of who did what?

Is the notion of composition worthwhile?  Probably, but that might not be the whole story.  I&#039;m a math major, so I interpret composition more in its mathematical sense.  Namely, the operation of composition creates a &quot;short cut&quot; but also loses information.  An auditor may need evidence that the composition was performed correctly.

I&#039;m not speaking for or against more accountability and audit trails; all I&#039;m trying to say is that all this is an area that deserves lots of exploration and discussion.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile revisiting SPKI.  That&#039;s a key-centric sustem that actually starts to deal directly with concepts of delegation of privilege and has a notion of composition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect that the concepts of delegation, accountability, and auditing constitute a very large and very fertile territory that is as yet unexplored.  The notion has been proposed that someone should delegate their privileges to a service to act on their behalf in their absence.  I can imagine that such a service would then re-delegate to some other service and so on.  This seems like it could get real messy in a hurry.  How many log files or receipts will an auditor need to round up and correlate to get a record of who did what?</p>
<p>Is the notion of composition worthwhile?  Probably, but that might not be the whole story.  I&#8217;m a math major, so I interpret composition more in its mathematical sense.  Namely, the operation of composition creates a &#8220;short cut&#8221; but also loses information.  An auditor may need evidence that the composition was performed correctly.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not speaking for or against more accountability and audit trails; all I&#8217;m trying to say is that all this is an area that deserves lots of exploration and discussion.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would be worthwhile revisiting SPKI.  That&#8217;s a key-centric sustem that actually starts to deal directly with concepts of delegation of privilege and has a notion of composition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

