Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

Purpose

The purpose of this page is to gather general notes created on the principles discussed during the IRM Workgroup meetings and discussions. 

 


 

Transferable

Submitted by Ian Glazer

Can we separate full from partial delegation?

Scope of delegation

* is scope something that really only applies to temporary transferance?

Does permanent transference creates a new relationship connection or replace an existing?

* some resonance with blockchain

Ken D's example of vehicle recall for notion of "prior"

Should we rename this to "delegation"?

System that respects the design prinicple of transferable:

* allows one party to hand its connection to a relationship to another party

* this hand off can be all or some of the original party's permissions

* this hand off can be for a period of time or permanent

---

 

Constrainable

 

Should there be "must" in the first sentence?

 

Applying a scope vs restrict a relationship going forward

 

persistence of constraints going forward

* may not always be possible

 

anti-pattern for "must"

* IoT - i might want to constrain what data it trasmits, but the device might no be able to not transmit a part of its data

            * in this case device cannot respect constrainability

            * is this the place for the "manager" to enforce constrainability

 

Constrainability may not have to be enforce by the actors but instead by the thing brokering the relationship

* in IoT the cloud backend constrains things for the actor

 

there is a strong implication that the thing involved can constrain itself.

 

 

"All behaviors and allowable actions associated with a relationship must be able to be constrained based on the desires, preferences, abilities, and even business models of the parties involved."

  • No labels