[cap-talk] "Ambient capability"

[Dave Chizmadia - Gmail]

The phrasing in the article indicates a classical
capability perspective.

The use cases seem (to me) to be the predominant 
justification for the capabilities with which
Keykos and its descendants endow each newly created 
domain (aka, "process" in POSIX-speak). When I first
read Kevin's message, I suspected that "ambient
capability" was a generalization of the "implicit
authority" concept that Rob Meijer introduced 
during the "ambient authority" discussion.

-DMC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org 
> [mailto:cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org] On Behalf Of Rob Meijer
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:24 PM
> To: General discussions concerning capability systems.
> Subject: Re: [cap-talk] "Ambient capability"
> 
> 
> On Fri, July 10, 2009 12:13, Matej Kosik wrote:
> > Kevin Reid wrote:
> >> Someone just wrote this page on the erights.org wiki:
> >>
> >>    http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Ambient_capability
> >>
> >> I've never seen this term before and the description feels a little
> >> off. Would the scholars and taxonomists of cap-talk please 
> review/edit
> >> this article?
> >
> > If I understand the term "ambient authority"
> > http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Ambient_authority
> > and "capability"
> > http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Capability
> > correctly, then "ambient capability" is an oxymoron.
> >
> > I have some questions (towards the author):
> > http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Talk:Ambient_authority
> >
> > What are some concrete examples of `ambient capabilities'?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if it matches the article, but POSIX 
> capabilities are ambient
> and are called capabilities, so IMO POSIX capbilities would 
> be a concrete
> example of ambient capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>