2001
DOI: 10.17487/rfc3060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
182
0
3

Year Published

2001
2001
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 322 publications
(185 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
182
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…It can express stateful and stateless rules (although an administrator does not need to know these kind of details, since complexity is hidden in the language), positive and negative rules, overlappings, exceptions, and can be compiled to six market-leader firewall languages. Some organizations have even proposed languages to represent access control policies as XML documents, such as XACML [8], PCIM [9], Rule-ML [10], and SRML [11]. However, none of these languages is specific enough for firewall access control policies, resulting in a complexity to express firewall concepts, or in an impossibility to express them at all (this is the case of NAT for all these languages).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It can express stateful and stateless rules (although an administrator does not need to know these kind of details, since complexity is hidden in the language), positive and negative rules, overlappings, exceptions, and can be compiled to six market-leader firewall languages. Some organizations have even proposed languages to represent access control policies as XML documents, such as XACML [8], PCIM [9], Rule-ML [10], and SRML [11]. However, none of these languages is specific enough for firewall access control policies, resulting in a complexity to express firewall concepts, or in an impossibility to express them at all (this is the case of NAT for all these languages).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many third-party domain specific languages (DSLs) have been proposed to abstract the network administrator from the underlying firewall platform details and language syntax [6,7,8,9,10,11]. A domain specific language provides more possibilities to network administrators, since it can raise the abstraction level of the problem domain using its own concepts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development follows a top-down approach where core classes are defined first and later extended to model specific services. The DMTF and the IETF jointly developed policy extensions of the CIM, known as PCIM [RFC3060]. o The main practical use of CIM schemas today seems to be the definition of data structures used internally by management systems.…”
Section: Cim / Mof / Uml / Pcimmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…o The Common Information Model (CIM) [CIM], developed by the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), has been extended in cooperation with the DMTF to describe high-level policies as rule sets (PCIM) [RFC3060]. Mappings of the CIM policy extensions to LDAP schemas have been defined and work continues to define specific schema extension for QoS and security policies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have used a subset of Core Information Model [10] and QoS Information Model [11] proposed in IETF with slight modifications. These modifications are necessary to override the limitations of direct attachment of some object classes.…”
Section: Policy Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%