[xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04

[bill parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

...provided you have a jvm handy (which by doing this we just offically 
made a requirement... or at least a very strong suggestion).

my feeling is that this being *psuedo code* it is only going to provide 
the logical construct for policy combination which will then be 
translated into the the internals of the PDP (be it java, c, c++, perl, 
python, c#, vb, etc.)

b

Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:

> "bill parducci" <bill@parducci.net> wrote:
> 
>>Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:38:27 -0800
>>counter propoposal to 3-04. i think that we should 'officially' use
>>c/c++ syntax for mandatory-to-implement combiner algorithms. for what i
>>think we need to do i believe that it is going to be virtually identical
>>and it doesn't have a vendor specific connotation.
>>
> 
>>>>===============================================================
>>>>PM-3-04: Pseudo Code for Combiner Algorithms (Ernesto)
>>>>
>>>>Proposed Resolution: Java syntax should be used to describe any
>>>>mandatory-to-implement combiner algorithms.
>>>>================================================================
>>>>
> 
> I think the primary value of Java for this purpose is that the combiner algorithm
> can be downloaded and executed on any platform as part of the PDP evaluation.  The
> only competitor is C#, and I think everyone would agree that is far more "vendor
> specific" than Java.  Nevertheless, I would be happy to accept C/C++ if that is
> what the TC majority prefers.  Both suggestions have merit.
> 
> Anne
>