Skip to content

docs(access-rules): clarify Descriptor FieldIdentifier applicability#78

Open
aorzelskiGH wants to merge 1 commit into
IDTA-01004-3-1_Workingfrom
docs/descriptor-profile-applicability
Open

docs(access-rules): clarify Descriptor FieldIdentifier applicability#78
aorzelskiGH wants to merge 1 commit into
IDTA-01004-3-1_Workingfrom
docs/descriptor-profile-applicability

Conversation

@aorzelskiGH
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Clarify in the Access Rule Model that Descriptor-based FieldIdentifiers ($aasdesc, $smdesc) are only meaningful in Registry deployments, and specify how non-applicable rules MUST behave.

Problem

$aasdesc and $smdesc access Registry metadata that is only exposed by the Registry profiles of IDTA-01002. In deployments that do not implement a Registry profile (e.g. a pure AAS Repository deployment), there is no descriptor data to evaluate against. The specification currently does not say what should happen for such a rule, so implementations disagree on whether to fail, deny or ignore it.

Solution

Add a small "Descriptor FieldIdentifier Applicability" paragraph to the Objects section of the Access Rule Model. Rules that reference $aasdesc or $smdesc in non-Registry deployments are treated as not applicable: they neither grant nor deny and MUST NOT cause evaluation to fail. A cross-reference points to the new "FieldIdentifier Applicability per Profile" table in IDTA-01002.

Affected files

  • documentation/IDTA-01004/modules/ROOT/pages/access-rule-model.adoc

Review notes

  • Paired PR: admin-shell-io/aas-specs-api#584 introduces the applicability table referenced from here.
  • Editorial change only; no BNF or JSON Schema change.

Refs: Review Finding T-07

$aasdesc / $smdesc address Registry metadata. In deployments without
a Registry profile, access rules that use these prefixes have no
data to evaluate against. This PR documents:

- the data is only available in Registry profiles (per IDTA-01002
  "FieldIdentifier Applicability per Profile");
- rules that reference $aasdesc / $smdesc in non-Registry deployments
  are treated as "not applicable" — neither grant nor deny — and
  MUST NOT cause evaluation to fail;
- implementations SHOULD scope Descriptor-based rules to deployments
  where at least one Registry profile is supported.

Refs: Review Finding T-07
Made-with: Cursor

In deployments that do not expose Registry endpoints (pure Repository profiles such as `AssetAdministrationShellRepositoryServiceSpecification/SSP-002`), access rules that reference `$aasdesc` or `$smdesc` are *not applicable*: the referenced metadata does not exist in the deployment, so the rule neither grants nor denies access. Evaluation MUST NOT fail because of such a rule; the rule is skipped for that request and any other applicable rules continue to apply.

Implementations SHOULD therefore scope Descriptor-based rules to deployments in which at least one Registry profile is supported. The concrete applicability per IDTA-01002 profile is listed in IDTA-01002 § "Service Specifications and Profiles", sub-section xref:IDTA-01002:http-rest-api/service-specifications-and-profiles.adoc#fieldidentifier-applicability[FieldIdentifier applicability per profile].

In deployments that do not expose Registry endpoints (pure Repository profiles such as `AssetAdministrationShellRepositoryServiceSpecification/SSP-002`), access rules that reference `$aasdesc` or `$smdesc` are *not applicable*: the referenced metadata does not exist in the deployment, so the rule neither grants nor denies access. Evaluation MUST NOT fail because of such a rule; the rule is skipped for that request and any other applicable rules continue to apply.

Implementations SHOULD therefore scope Descriptor-based rules to deployments in which at least one Registry profile is supported. The concrete applicability per IDTA-01002 profile is listed in IDTA-01002 § "Service Specifications and Profiles", sub-section xref:IDTA-01002:http-rest-api/service-specifications-and-profiles.adoc#fieldidentifier-applicability[FieldIdentifier applicability per profile].
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants