OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

 View Only

RE: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11

  • 1.  RE: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11

    Posted 03-03-2004 19:22
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xacml message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: RE: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11


    Polar - The map, as I understood it, was that:
    
    Sections 5 and 6 would describe processing rules directly related to a
    particular element type;
    
    Section 7 would describe any processing rules that could not be associated
    with a particular element type; and
    
    Appendix A would describe standard data-types and functions.
    
    We haven't followed this map consistently.  For example, A11 describes the
    <Function> element and really provides no additional value over that
    provided by 5.28 Element <Function>.
    
    Where several elements require identical processing, it seems appropriate to
    reference a common section in Section 7.  Then Appendix A should be reserved
    for describing the data-types and functions identified with a URI.
    
    Are there objections to this approach?  All the best.  Tim.
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Polar Humenn [mailto:polar@syr.edu] 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:16 AM
    To: Seth Proctor
    Cc: Tim Moses; 'XACML'
    Subject: Re: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11
    
    
    
    
    On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Seth Proctor wrote:
    
    >
    > > Colleagues - I would like to eliminate Section A7 - A11.  Their 
    > > crime? Egregious redundancy.  If you would like to submit a plea for 
    > > clemency, please do so.  All the best.  Tim.
    >
    > Sounds fine to me. You may be able to include A.6 as well, since most 
    > (though maybe not all of it) is also pretty redundant. You know, as 
    > long as you're killing stuff :)
    
    I don't think it is that simple or egregious. There are normative
    requirements on the semantics in those sections that are not specified
    elsewhere. You'd have to move those requirements to the syntax section,
    which might muddle the waters a bit. The syntax section basically just
    explains the structure and what's allowed where. Appendix A explains the
    semantics in relation to the semantics of other the elements. I think the
    appendix would read kind of like something was missing, if those sections
    where simply tossed.
    
    Cheers,
    -Polar
    
    
    > seth
    >
    >
    > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
    > of the OASIS TC), go to 
    > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workg
    > roup.php.
    >
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]