From dev-return-48377-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@couchdb.apache.org Wed Feb 27 11:47:53 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C6EF180608 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:47:53 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 83262 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2019 11:47:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 83251 invoked by uid 99); 27 Feb 2019 11:47:52 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:47:52 +0000 Received: from mail-it1-f179.google.com (mail-it1-f179.google.com [209.85.166.179]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 6A57931B9 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it1-f179.google.com with SMTP id z131so8739914itf.5 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:47:51 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub85FkNRUw+MxXUQ7vIGCn2j0mhb80F6K6NcwlnOD2QDWSMcpfw YayRRR9oowwAi5s7rOad7BOeDNFJrFA8tqtho086mQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY5d8PhRrwFHLexdkewepwJ2CFdss4yvs22GYp5jgiPvvCBcgCKxQr1ll0z7j/iyO2uK8CniqtNqScBh9s8l6s= X-Received: by 2002:a02:745:: with SMTP id f66mr1013816jaf.137.1551268070859; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:47:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0115BBC5-B7C9-4887-9F93-1DE46146ADAD@apache.org> <40915025-DDBF-4291-8C7C-7CC69EB326A8@apache.org> <5C217847-5E47-43E5-AB13-DCE069DC813A@apache.org> <21E6C2A4-A22E-4A29-91FD-4FB113B8684C@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <21E6C2A4-A22E-4A29-91FD-4FB113B8684C@apache.org> From: Garren Smith Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:47:40 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Per-doc access control To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050b8040582debe61" --00000000000050b8040582debe61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adam, I probably didn=E2=80=99t give views the most thought. I was thinking we co= uld implement views by either using the changes feed or a new query engine like we do for mango. Does that make sense or is it not really possible? On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:26 AM Adam Kocoloski wrote: > > > On Feb 26, 2019, at 7:12 PM, Michael Fair > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:38 PM Adam Kocoloski > wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> > >> If I=E2=80=99m reading you correctly you=E2=80=99re concerned about cr= oss-domain > >> authentication. A good problem and worth discussing, but I think it=E2= =80=99s > >> cleanly decoupled from the per-doc access control work, which is > focused on > >> *authorization*. > >> > >> > > > > I don't think I'm talking about the same cross domain authentication yo= u > > are talking about. I think you are talking about a web page from Domai= n > > (B) attempting to access Couch resource in domain (A) (Cross site > scripting > > access). That's not what I'm talking about. > > > > I'm talking about what ought to happen with the authorization control > > definitions when you have two Couch servers, one running in Domain (A) > and > > one running in Domain (B) with different sets of system users, such tha= t > > the authorized entities in the bidirectionally replicated database don'= t > > exist in both server instances (the two distinct domains share the same > > document database but have disparate sets of authenticated system users= ). > > > > In other words the ("sam", "pete", and "joe") users on domain/machine A > are > > not the same thing as the ("mary", "betty", and "sue") users on > > domain/machine B; yet the replicated database between the two machines > has > > the same access control document authorization descriptors in both > places. > > > Thanks Mike, I did understand you correctly the first time. I still > maintain that=E2=80=99s in the realm of authentication, not authorization= , and > should be cleanly separable from the problem of implementing per-document > access controls. Cheers, > > Adam --00000000000050b8040582debe61--