MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















xacml message






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

--

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








Subject: RE: [xacml] another small time/date issue




From: "Daniel Engovatov" <dengovatov@bea.com>
To: <Anne.Anderson@sun.com>, "Seth Proctor" <Seth.Proctor@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:43:53 -0700






It may.  But do we really want to specify exactly how it is done without
unduly restricting architecture of implementations?  
I thought it would be beneficial for an authorization language standard
to stay out of data flow management and operational behavior as much as
possible.  We specify how to deal with attributes that are explicitly
provided in a request, but anything concerning PIP sources of
information was intentionally left undefined, as far as I remember.  

Daniel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems [mailto:Anne.Anderson@sun.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:36 PM
To: Daniel Engovatov; Seth Proctor
Cc: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org; Polar Humenn
Subject: RE: [xacml] another small time/date issue

Won't the initial Request go to a single PDP?  And that PDP might
invoke others to evaluate sub-policies?

If that is the case, then the initial PDP could add its concept of
"current-time/date/dateTime" to the Request context that it sends
to any other PDP for subordinate evaluation.

-Anne








Follow-Ups:

Re: [xacml] another small time/date issue
From: bill parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>








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

--

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