Talk:AGDLP

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

AGDLP - not every time[edit]

From first hand experience migrating shared mailboxes from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010 within the same domain, AGDLP no longer applies to Exchange. Raised a case with MS, spoke to a representative who advised that "yes, AGDLP is correct, but with Exchange you should look to use AGUP for permissions." He couldn't cite when the change occurred, he did say he'd take it up with management/documentation as he agreed it's not mentioned. Very frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.177 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

this looks to me like its straight out of a text book

Agreed. This page doesn't explain at all why one would use this model (i.e., the global groups represent business roles in the domain, whereas the domain local groups represent permissions or user rights in the domain), and the examples are not completely accurate as a result (e.g., one usually assigns the global groups in the various domains to a universal group and then assigns the universal group to the relevant domain local groups, because the universal groups are replicated to all global catalogs and this simplifies group membership resolution and inter-domain traffic in large forests, if I understand it correctly). Xenophon Fenderson 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to this page from Role based access control and from Active Directory. Xenophon Fenderson (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Re-write[edit]

I want to propose the following replacement for this article:

User:Xenophonf/AGDLP

I rewrote the acronym descriptions and created an example use-case. I also added references to the relevant literature (including RBAC research papers and Microsoft's documentation).

Xenophon Fenderson (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RBAC ?[edit]

As far as I can tell this has nothing to do with RBAC and it only deal with groups.

I could not find anything on Microsoft's docs tying AGDLP to RBAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears there is a lot of folks associating RBAC with AGDLP, but not Microsoft and Groups!=RBAC.

-jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]