OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

Re: [xacml] functions issues

  • 1.  Re: [xacml] functions issues

    Posted 08-27-2002 15:25
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xacml message

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


    Subject: Re: [xacml] functions issues


    I think that if a designator is raising error while matching target
    'error' must be returned.
    
    Simon
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Polar Humenn" <polar@syr.edu>
    To: "Simon Godik" <simon@godik.com>
    Cc: <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:14 PM
    Subject: Re: [xacml] functions issues
    
    
    > On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Simon Godik wrote:
    >
    > > I'm ok with the way 'or', 'and' are descirbed in the latest document:
    > >
    > > 'or': First to last, 'true' if one arg evaluates to 'true'. If any arg
    raises an error, return an ERROR.
    > > 'and': First to last, 'false' if one arg evaluates to 'false'. If any
    arg raises an error, return an ERROR.
    > > In any case, if definitive result can be concluded, the rest of the args
    is not evaluated.
    > >
    > > Here is a variation that forces all args computation, even in the
    presense of an error:
    > > (Longer, but gives your a better chance to succeed):
    >
    > Actually, the "variation" a better approximation to the formal result, and
    > it sort of matches the semantics that we have chosen for our combinators.
    >
    > > Compute all 'and', 'or' args first to last. If 'error' is raised use it
    as placeholder until all computation is complete.
    > > If 'error' could be substituted with either (true, false) without
    changing an outcome, return outcome.
    > > Otherwise return error.
    >
    > > In any case, I do not see any errors being 'hidden', meaning changing an
    outcome of computation.
    > > Simply some errors are relevant and some are not.
    >
    > > I do not agree with defining error functions and default values.
    >
    > I don't see what the big fuss is. The fact is that if you have errors, you
    > notice them, it follows that you just may want to handle them, and then
    > you should have formal mechanisms to do so. I'm just trying to be
    > thorough and complete. However, I'll take them out.
    >
    > Further more, I would like to know what happens when a SubjectMatch or
    > ResourceAttributeSelector, or ActionMatch results in an ERROR for the
    > target of a rule, a policy?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > -Polar
    >
    >
    >
    >
    
    


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


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC