Re: [xacml-comment] About Duration-Equal Testcases

[Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>]

On 4 February, Satoshi Hada writes: [xacml-comment] About Duration-Equal Testcases
 > I found IIC231 and IIC232 missing.
 > Will you add them soon or is anyone working on them?

My bad - these functions were included late in the game, and I
never noticed I had still not written test cases for them.  I
will try to do them later this week, but if someone else wants to
submit test cases for these, feel free!

Everyone is encouraged to add test cases.

I suggest the process be for people to post an e-mail to
xacml-comment that has the files for their test cases attached.
Other implementors on the list can try them out and see if they
believe the test cases correctly interpret the specification, and
post their results.  The TC members can also review the tests and
comment.

Once the community of implementors has had this chance to review
and approve the test cases, and the TC has had a chance to
comment, I am comfortable adding them to the suite.

I do not feel it is appropriate for me personally to be the
arbiter of what is or is not a correct test of XACML, especially
now that it is (almost) a standard!  That is why I was very
careful about adding more tests late in the game, wanting to give
everyone a chance to disagree with my interpretation if
necessary.  Fortunately, many of you did, and I think the
resulting tests are very good!

Thanks to all,
Anne
-- 
Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692