Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove acp:mode from Context properties #311

Closed
timbl opened this issue Sep 14, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #314
Closed

Remove acp:mode from Context properties #311

timbl opened this issue Sep 14, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #314
Assignees
Labels
ACP ACP ontology related

Comments

@timbl
Copy link
Contributor

timbl commented Sep 14, 2022

On proposal

ACP

Details

In section 3, the Context structure includes an acp:mode property as "acp:mode:
The mode attribute describes requested modes of access."

But the system does not provide just one mode at a time, it provides a set of modes. That property on the context is not needed and should be removed.

In general, even when a read request comes in, the client typically needs to know (Through WAC-Allow etc) what other access is allowed.

Acceptance criteria

Remove acp:modes from the context each time it appears

@matthieubosquet
Copy link
Member

Thank you for this @timbl! I think that you are right, the acp:mode property is superfluous.

I have created a PR addressing this issue that I hope we can merge soon. It is a in the list of topics for the authorization-panel next wednesday (28/09).

@langsamu
Copy link
Contributor

langsamu commented Sep 21, 2022

I'd implemented the ACP access control resolution algorithm very recently.
I agree that acp:mode is not used anywhere and should be removed.

@matthieubosquet matthieubosquet added the ACP ACP ontology related label Sep 21, 2022
@matthieubosquet matthieubosquet self-assigned this Sep 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ACP ACP ontology related
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants