MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















xacml message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [xacml] URI match function




From: Michiharu Kudoh <KUDO@jp.ibm.com>
To: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:28:56 +0900










Yes, I would like to discuss about this.

Best,
Michiharu



                                                                           
             Tim Moses                                                     
             <tim.moses@entrus                                             
             t.com>                                                     To 
                                       Michiharu Kudoh/Japan/IBM@IBMJP,    
             2004/06/16 00:24          "'xacml'"                           
                                       <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>        
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [xacml] URI match function      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Michiharu - Thanks for your comment.

I chose the name url-match over uri-match because the function does not
address urns, only urls.

I agree with your interpretation of the function as expressed in your
table.

I agree with your idea of being able to match either all descendants or
just
children.

There appear to be a number of possible ways to achieve this, and a little
discussion would probably be worthwhile.

We could have two functions, as you propose, or we could have a new
reserved
character, as (I think) Bill is proposing.  If we expect policy writers to
use the two options interchangeably in a policy, then expressing the
distinction in the argument (i.e. using a new reserved character) seems
preferable to expressing it in the function name.

Why don't we discuss at our next focus group meeting?

All the best.  Tim.