xacml-comment message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Fw: problem with conformance tests
- From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com>
- To: xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:06:21 +0900
Satoshi Hada
IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
mailto:satoshih@jp.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Satoshi
Hada/Japan/IBM on 2004/03/24 10:07 -----
Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
2004/03/24 00:39
|
To
| Satoshi Hada/Japan/IBM@IBMJP
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: problem with conformance
tests |
|
Hi Satoshi. Thank you for your response. Could you please forward this
email
to the comment list, since I seem to be having trouble with it.
> The problem is that there is no detailed description about
> <AttributeAssignment> in the XACML 1.0 spec.
> Anyway, I'll ask Kudo-san to correct the testcases according to your
comment.
I absolutely agree that there is no detail in the spec. This is a real
issue.
The problem, of course, is that the PDP is supposed to ignore what's in
the
assignments, so it's hard to talk about the correct format :) In this case,
because AttributeAssignment _is_ an AttributeValue, I believe you have
to
follow the definition of AttributeValue to get the correct behavior. Maybe
I'll
suggest some new language for XACML 2.0 to describe this...
A separate problem here is that I'm not sure string should be used the
way
it's being used in these examples (ie, as a container for complex content).
I
raised this issue once before, but never heard any comments back. I think
I'll
try raising it again.
> Is there any meeting minutes on the agreement.
> I'm asking because we should mention it (if any) in the test case
description.
I can't seem to find them now, but I know I had this discussion at some
point. I'll see what I can find.
seth
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]