This is fine with me. -Anne On 11 October, Tim Moses writes: RE: [xacml] AA04: 5.1 PolicySetId explanation clarification > From: Tim Moses <
tim.moses@entrust.com> > To: "'
Anne.Anderson@Sun.com'" <
Anne.Anderson@sun.com>, > XACML TC > <
xacml@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: RE: [xacml] AA04: 5.1 PolicySetId explanation clarification > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:06:50 -0400 > > Anne - I was definitely uncomfortable with the original wording. But, even > your improvement leaves unnecessary room for misunderstanding. Why not > clearly state that it is the PAP's responsibility to ensure that no two > policies visible to a PDP have the same identifier? So, instead of > "minimize the potential", why not say "eliminate the possibility"? > > In practice, PDPs SHALL only accept policies from PAPs that agree to conform > to a disjoint identifier assignment scheme and PAPs MUST adhere to their > declared scheme. Yes/No? > > All the best. Tim. > >