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 »

Add your comments directly to the page. Include links to any relevant research, data, or feedback.

Status

IN PROGRESS

Impact

HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW

Driver

Vineet Singh 

Approver

Razak K M

Contributors

Michael Lux (Unlicensed)      

Informed

Gerd Brost (Unlicensed)Mayank (Unlicensed)Sagar Singh (Unlicensed)Waseemsaureen (Unlicensed)

Due date

Outcome

Background

Time restricted usage control description

Options considered

Option 1: Time embedded in Data

Option 2: IDSCP2 in Apps

Option 3: Standardized App Inferface for UC

Description

  • Header in data that has details about the time constraints

  • The application is reading the data and enforcing it

  • IDSCP2 implementation to communicate between containers (metadata and headers in IDSCP2 manage usage control)

  • Other standard apart from IDSCP2 like REST

  • The interface consumes data, policy for implementation

Pros and cons

(plus)

Simplicity

(minus)

  • No possiblity to or very difficult to configure on protocol level

  • Not standardized, data format is app specific

(plus)

  • Standardized IDS messages

  • Configurable outside of app

(minus)

  • IDSCP2 implementation required within application

  • No passing of UC to apps implemented in Connectors yet, unknown effort

(plus)

  • Managable implementation effort

  • No full IDSCP2 implementation required, only REST server or similar

(minus)

  • To be standardized/ implemented, especially passing from Connector to App

Estimated effort

SMALL

VERY LARGE

VERY LARGE

Action items

Outcome

  • No labels