docs(access-rules): add normative Evaluation Semantics clause#79
Open
aorzelskiGH wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs(access-rules): add normative Evaluation Semantics clause#79aorzelskiGH wants to merge 1 commit into
aorzelskiGH wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Specify how the Access Rule Model MUST be evaluated so that
implementations behave deterministically:
- Rule combination
permit-overrides; DISABLED rules are ignored at enforcement;
applicability requires OBJECT/RIGHT/field resolution plus a
FORMULA evaluating to true; no applicable ALLOW => deny.
- Error handling
missing CLAIM, failing cast, or Descriptor-based FieldIdentifier
in a non-Registry profile => rule is "not applicable" (neither
grants nor denies, MUST NOT fail evaluation);
unresolvable FieldIdentifier inside a comparison => false;
unresolved USEACL/USEOBJECTS/USEFORMULA/USEATTRIBUTES or
schema-invalid document => reject at load time.
- Filter combination
FILTERs on the same FRAGMENT across applicable ALLOW rules are
OR-combined; FILTERs on different FRAGMENTs are applied
independently; empty FILTERLIST is equivalent to no filter;
absence of FILTER/FILTERLIST exposes the full matched object.
- Interaction with the Query Language
fixed order (parse -> candidate set -> apply rules -> apply
FILTER/FILTERLIST); implementations may optimise as long as the
observable outcome is preserved.
Refs: Review Finding T-15
Made-with: Cursor
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
| * a required CLAIM is not present in the access token; | ||
| * a cast produces an invalid value (e.g. `dateTime("abc")`); | ||
| * a Descriptor-based FieldIdentifier is used in a non-Registry profile (see xref:#descriptor-applicability[Descriptor FieldIdentifier Applicability]). |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Add a normative
Evaluation Semanticsclause toaccess-rule-model.adocso that rule combination, error cases and filter combination behave deterministically across implementations.Problem
The current specification describes the syntax of access rules in detail, but leaves several evaluation questions implicit:
CLAIMis missing, a cast fails, or a FieldIdentifier does not resolve on the target?FILTER/FILTERLISTbe combined across matching rules?Without normative rules, implementations diverge (fail-open vs. fail-closed vs. error), blocking conformance testing.
Solution
Introduce
Evaluation Semantics (normative)covering:FORMULA=true.false; unresolved USEACL/USEOBJECTS/USEFORMULA/USEATTRIBUTES or schema-invalid document => reject at load time.Affected files
documentation/IDTA-01004/modules/ROOT/pages/access-rule-model.adocReview notes
admin-shell-io/aas-specs-api#585adds the matchingQuery Evaluation Semanticsclause.Descriptor FieldIdentifier Applicability(docs(access-rules): clarify Descriptor FieldIdentifier applicability #78) andXOR/Mix(PR fix(schema): use anyOf where BNF allows mixed inline and named groups #75).Refs: Review Finding T-15