<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 November 2015 at 21:40, Stan Silvert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ssilvert@redhat.com" target="_blank">ssilvert@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div>On 11/5/2015 2:36 PM, Stian Thorgersen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">We're only providing parts of RBAC now. The
complete picture is what Pedro is working on with his AuthZ
service.</div>
</blockquote></span>
Yea, as I understand it, Pedro is doing P. (P for Pedro!) And
also, he's filling in the rest of the gaps surrounding P.<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>From the definitions above we're actually only providing
S and R. SE is not a group as a group doesn't provide any
permissions.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Maybe that's a good reason to stick with the definitions below. I
see "Group" as a way to implement the mapping called for in SE. But
it doesn't have to be that way.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Group is not SE, I'm pretty sure of that. A group is just an "attribute" of the subject. It doesn't "provide" any permissions or any mapping between subjects and permissions.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not 100% sure what the group would be in the above, but
I would think it's just part of S. A group is simply a means
of assigning a role to a group of users.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 5 November 2015 at 20:24, Stan
Silvert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ssilvert@redhat.com" target="_blank">ssilvert@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>We could do a lot worse than just following the basic
RBAC design described on Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-based_access_control" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-based_access_control</a><br>
<br>
Right now we're arguing over both definitions AND
implementations. It's impossible to design this over
email if we can't even settle on definitions.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I propose we just use the definitions in
wikipedia. At least it's neutral. <br>
<ul>
<li>S = Subject = A person or automated agent</li>
<li>R = Role = Job function or title which defines an
authority level</li>
<li>P = Permissions = An approval of a mode of access
to a resource</li>
<li>SE = Session = A mapping involving S, R and/or P</li>
<li>SA = Subject Assignment</li>
<li>PA = Permission Assignment</li>
<li>RH = Partially ordered Role Hierarchy. RH can also
be written: ≥ (The notation: x ≥ y means that x
inherits the permissions of y.)
<ul>
<li>A subject can have multiple roles.</li>
<li>A role can have multiple subjects.</li>
<li>A role can have many permissions.</li>
<li>A permission can be assigned to many roles.</li>
<li>An operation can be assigned many permissions.</li>
<li>A permission can be assigned to many
operations.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
Note: In my mind, S = keycloak user, and SE = keycloak
group. But whatever, as long as we agree on definitions
we can then decide what flavor of RBAC to implement.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 11/5/2015 1:44 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 5 November 2015 at
15:01, Bill Burke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
<br>
On 11/5/2015 6:23 AM, Stian Thorgersen
wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span> <br>
<br>
On 3 November 2015 at 22:20, Bill Burke
<<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a><br>
</span><span> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
In my previous email I talked about
combining Groups and Role<br>
Namespaces. Now I want to talk
about User Groups vs. Client Groups.<br>
<br>
User Groups would manage a set of
users. Members would automatically<br>
inherit a set of "permissions": a
set of roles. User Groups would also<br>
provide a set of attributes that the
user inherits.<br>
<br>
<br>
Permission != role<br>
<br>
<br>
I'd like to introduce the concept of
a Client Group. Client Group would<br>
have:<br>
<br>
* Roles - basically a role namespace<br>
<br>
<br>
-1 Having roles tied to a client or
client group is exactly what we<br>
should go away from. IMO role namespaces
should be a completely separate<br>
thing.<br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
I don't agree at all. If User Groups and
Client Groups exist, there is no need for
role namespaces. It is stupid to have to
create another concept (role namespace) to
define the roles one specific client or a
group of clients expects.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've never the concept of realm and
client roles. It's been difficult to explain
and strange to use. I've always just used
realm roles. It's a strange and limiting
concept. Introducing client groups with
further places to define roles just makes
matters even worse. Now users have two go 3
different places to define roles:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Realm</div>
<div>* Client Groups</div>
<div>* Clients</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What happens if a client group and a
client both have the same role by the way?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's a strange limitation. At least
personally if I was using Keycloak I would
simply use realm roles alone and define my
own hierarchy with a delimiter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's much better to have a single place
to define roles, under the roles tab. Then
allow users can define the
namespaces/hierarchy they want.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Role namespaces are easier to deal with
and at the same time more flexible. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just don't see any reason why we would
have roles specific to a client or client
group.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
If you combine Role namespace and Groups you
can define things like a group admin role.
Roles that mean something to the group.<span><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Each
Client Group would have some default
roles defined. i.e. roles<br>
that allow a user to edit any client
in the client group.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don't understand this<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> A Client Group could have a "client
group admin" role. If a user has that role
it can manage clients in the group. Another
role might be "client membership admin".
This role allows a user to add or remove
clients from the group.<br>
<br>
Conversely, user groups could have a "user
group admin". When granted, this role
allows a user to manage users in the group.
YOu can also do things like define a
"Manager" role for the group. This
"Manager" would be granted "user group
admin" privileges and also granted access to
other systems like "HR", "Attendence",
"Benefits", etc.<br>
<br>
I think this permission concept should be
built into Keycloak as it is a core
feature. I'll write u a separate email
about this.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is another reason why we need role
namespaces. With a role namespace we can
define internal roles that then don't end up
conflicting with users own roles. For
example as we have a role admin atm users
can't define their own admin role and will
have to name it differently.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the fact that we have internal
abstract clients to be able to create a
namespace for internal admin roles speaks
for itself. </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
Each Client would have the same
configuration options. They would be<br>
able to have an additional set of
roles, permissions, scope, and<br>
overridable Protocol Policies.<br>
<br>
<br>
Same comment as above - why would a
client have roles/permissions? I<br>
assume we where moving away from that
with role namespaces<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Again, I think role namespaces are
redundant.<br>
<br>
A client can define a set of roles that it
offers. A service account (the client) can
have roles associated with it so it can do
certain actions.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some will want to have roles associated
with a client (email-user), but others have
organizational wide roles (manager,
sales-guy, etc..). Role namespaces can deal
with both, but client roles can't.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Bill Burke<br>
JBoss, a division of Red Hat<br>
<a href="http://bill.burkecentral.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bill.burkecentral.com</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span>
<pre>_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
keycloak-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>