[xacml] Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations>present but not supported

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

No, I mean a PDP that is programmed not to return Obligations
because it does not want to run the risk of infringing on IBM's
IP claims.

Anne

On 18 November, bill parducci writes: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but  not supported
 > From: bill parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>
 > To: XACML COMMENT <xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
 > Subject: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but
 >  not supported
 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:27:21 -0800
 > 
 > 
 > do you mean the pEp? the pDp need not understand an Obligation since it is imposed upon the pEp as part of enforcement of the decision, not on the pDp as a consequence of making the decision.
 > 
 > e.g. 
 > decision: PERMIT
 > obligation: STRONGENCRYPT
 > 
 > make sense?
 > 
 > b
 > 
 > Anne Anderson wrote:
 > 
 > >The behavior of a PDP that does not support the optional
 > > element when presented with a Policy containing
 > > is not specified.
 > >
 > >Possible behavior: if a Policy or PolicySet is Applicable to a
 > >Request and the Policy or PolicySet contains , but
 > >the PDP does not support , that the PDP MUST return
 > >"Deny".
 > >
 > >Anne Anderson
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------
 > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
 > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
 > 

-- 
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