[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xacml] Comments decisions from 11/21/02 TC Meeting: partial minutes
Attached is collection of extracts from the Comments file containing the items we discussed and/or resolved at the 11/21/02 XACML TC Meeting. This forms a portion of the minutes of the TC meeting. Anne Anderson -- 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
Title: Comments on XACML 1.0 Committee Specification Maintainer: Anne Anderson Version: %I%, %E% (yy/mm/dd) Original Source: %P% This file contains a link to every comment received on the xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list that was discussed at the XACML TC meeting on 21 November 2002. ACTION ITEMS: ACTION ITEM: [Michiharu] submit following as new comment. COMMENT: In Section 5.20 Element <Policy>, under <Description> description, say "See 5.2 Element <Description>". In Section 5.2 Element <Description>, add <Rule> to the list from which this applies. [Arose during discussion of Comment#0014] ACTION ITEM: [Tim Moses] propose an introductory paragraph for 3.3.1 motivating Rule. [Comment#0032a] ACTION ITEM: [Polar][Daniel] Provide opinions on Comment#0033 Subject: map function CATEGORIES ---------- Editorial: Formatting error or formatting inconsistency. Inconsistent: Specification says one thing in one place and another thing in another place. Incomplete: Specification omits information required for full specification of a feature. Incorrect: Specification describes functionality that will not work due to external or internal constraints. Unclear: Description of feature is not clear or is ambiguous. Undesirable: Feature is not desirable. Alternative: Proposed alternative to a feature ====================================================================== COMMENTS ====================================================================== 0012. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00015.htm Subject: Section A12 From: John Merrells <merrells@jiffysoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:03:04 -0800 I'm finding section A12 difficult to understand. I think the information could be more clearly presented. 1) It introduces the Target element and its immediate child elements, and then the standard functions that can be used for a MatchID. But then a couple of paragraphs later it says that the only functions that can appear in a MatchID of a Target child are a different bunch of functions. This is confusing. 2) <i>type</i>-match appears as a standard function. (And does not appear in the conformance tables.) The subsequent paragraph starts "The evaluation semantics for a match is as follows...' But is this referring to the standard match functions as a whole, or just the behaviour of the <i>type</i>-match function itself. If not then where's the definition of <i>type</i>-match ? 3) The text and the examples refer to the special match functions before they've actually been defined. I think a reorg of section A12 would improve the legibility quite a bit. And followup in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00016.html: > 2) <i>type</i>-match appears as a standard function. (And does not appear > in the conformance tables.) The subsequent paragraph starts "The > evaluation > semantics for a match is as follows...' But is this referring to the > standard > match functions as a whole, or just the behaviour of the > <i>type</i>-match > function itself. If not then where's the definition of > <i>type</i>-match ? I think I've worked out that the <i>type</i> place holder in the list of the standard match functions is not meant to stand in for all the types recognized by xacml, but is meant as a kind of wildcard to refer to the functions actually specified. So <i>type</i>-match doesn't mean integer-match, double-match, etc, but actually just rfc822Name-match and x500Name-match.I think other readers might be confused by this too. CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. We agreed that this section is unclear and needs to be re-worded. We agreed to keep the existing difference in argument order between MatchId functions and FunctionId functions, despite agreeing that this is very confusing and error-prone. The changes required to the specification (including most examples), implementations, and conformance tests are too pervasive to change at this point for a feature that is not actually broken. If the XACML specification is not submitted to OASIS for standardization on 15 December 2002, however, we agreed that the argument order should be made consistent before the specification is re-submitted. ACTIONS: Replace Appendix A.12 "Matching elements" with the revised text attached to e-mail message http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200211/msg00157.html. ========================================================================= 0013. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00032.html Subject: The PolicySet Schema (Line 1759--1762) From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:02:24 +0900 A minor comment on Line 1759--1762. I found the type of two attributes (PolicySetId and PolicyCombiningAlgId) specified by a long URI http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anyURI I'm not sure this is wrong, but I can say it's strange in the sense that the qname xs:anyURI is used in other schema descriptions (e.g., Line 1819, 1889). I think it's better to replace the long URI with the (short) qname. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. Change to use qnames, since this is a fragment from the schema, not from an instance. ACTIONS: Change document lines 1759 and 1762 such that xs: is used instead of "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#". ========================================================================= 0014. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00033.html Subject: No description about the PolicyDefaults element From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:48:16 +0900 The <PolicySetDefaults> element is described in Section 5.3, but I could find no section describing the <PolicyDefaults> element. As a result, no syntax is defined for it in the specification document. Is this okay? CATEGORY: Incomplete. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved adding PolicyDefaults description. ACTIONS: Add PolicyDefaults section as new 5.21 as follows: 5.21 Element <PolicyDefaults> The <PolicyDefaults> element SHALL specify default values that apply to the <Policy> element. <xs:element name="PolicyDefaults" type="xacml:DefaultsType"/> <xs:complexType name="DefaultsType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="xacml:XPathVersion" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:choice> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <PolicyDefaults> element is of DefaultsType complex type. <XPathVersion> [Optional] Default XPath version. ACTION ITEM: [Michiharu] submit following as new comment. COMMENT: In Section 5.20 Element <Policy>, under <Description> description, say "See 5.2 Element <Description>". In Section 5.2 Element <Description>, add <Rule> to the list from which this applies. ========================================================================= 0015. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00034.html Subject: conformance tests (NotApplicatble or Not-Applicabale) From: John Merrells <merrells@jiffysoftware.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:32:46 -0800 The spec says 'Not-Applicable', but the tests (eg. IIB003Response.xml) say 'NotApplicable'. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. SEE ALSO: #16 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved changing specification text to "NotApplicable". ACTIONS: Change specification text throughout to use "NotApplicable" rather than "Not-Applicable". ========================================================================= 0016. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00035.html Subject: NotApplicable From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:07:50 -0500 The schema uses "NotApplicable" in a Decision, but the spec says that it's "Not-applicable" ... I'm pretty sure the schema is correct here, right? CATEGORY: Inconsistent. SEE ALSO: #15 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved changing specification text to "NotApplicable". ACTIONS: Change specification text throughout to use "NotApplicable" rather than "Not-Applicable". ========================================================================= 0017. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00036.html Subject: Another A.12 comment From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:09:47 -0500 Section A.12 (which I know Anne is re-working) makes several mentions of the EnvironmentMatch type ... there is no such type, so this should probably be removed from A.12 CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Remove EnvironmentMatch type. ACTIONS: Replace Section A.12 with the text supplied in e-mail message http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200211/msg00157.html. ========================================================================= 0018. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00039.html Subject: xacml:Policy:XpathVersion mandatory-to-implement? From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:45:24 -0500 (EST) In Section 10.3.1, "xacml:Policy:XpathVersion" is listed as mandatory-to-implement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0018a. This should be spelled "XPathVersion" CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. Spelling should be "XPathVersion". ACTIONS: Change 10.3.1 to use "XPathVersion" spelling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0018b. This should not be mandatory-to-implement, since support for XPath functionality and the containing PolicyDefaults are not mandatory-to-implement. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. XPathVersion is not mandatory-to-implement. ACTIONS: Change 10.3.1 M/O column for "xacml:Policy:XPathVersion" to "O". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0018c. 10.3.1 should contain "xacml:Policy:PolicyDefaults", and it should be marked not mandatory-to-implement CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. Add an entry for PolicyDefaults marked not mandatory-to-implement. ACTIONS: Add to 10.3.1 an entry for "xacml:Policy:PolicyDefaults", marked "O" (optional). ========================================================================= 0019. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00040.html Subject: Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but notsupported From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:25:13 -0500 (EST) The behavior of a PDP that does not support the optional <Obligations> element when presented with a Policy containing <Obligations> is not specified. Possible behavior: if a Policy or PolicySet is Applicable to a Request and the Policy or PolicySet contains <Obligations>, but the PDP does not support <Obligations>, that the PDP MUST return "Deny". CATEGORY: Incomplete. SEE ALSO: #20 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved specifying behavior. Behavior SHALL be to return "Indeterminate". ACTIONS: Add new Section 7.12 "Unsupported functionality" as follows: 7.12 Unsupported functionality If the PDP attempts to evaluate a PolicySet or Policy that contains an element type or feature that the PDP does not support, then the PDP SHALL return a response of "Indeterminate". If a StatusCode is also returned, the PDP SHALL return a StatusCode value of "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:status:syntax-error" for an unsupported element type error , and "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:status:processing-error" for an unsupported feature error. ========================================================================= 0020. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00041.html Subject: INCOMPLETE: behavior when XPath encountered,but not supported From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:37:35 -0500 (EST) The behavior of a PDP that does not support the optional XPath *Defaults, selectors, functions, etc. when presented with a policy containing such elements is not specified. In some cases, the XPath elements may appear in a <Target> element, making it impossible to determine whether or not a PolicySet, Policy, or Rule is applicable. In other cases, the <Target> element may not require any XPath functionality, and a PolicySet, Policy, or Rule may be applicable, but evaluating the <Condition> in the Rule may require XPath functionality. Possible behavior: If, during evaluation of a Request, any unsupported element is encountered, then the PDP MUST return a result of Indeterminate. CATEGORY: Incomplete. SEE ALSO: #19 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved specifying behavior. Behavior SHALL be to return "Indeterminate". ACTIONS: Add new Section 7.12 "Unsupported functionality" as follows: 7.12 Unsupported functionality If the PDP attempts to evaluate a PolicySet or Policy that contains an element type or feature that the PDP does not support, then the PDP SHALL return a response of "Indeterminate". If a StatusCode is also returned, the PDP SHALL return a StatusCode value of "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:status:syntax-error" for an unsupported element type error , and "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:status:processing-error" for an unsupported feature error. ========================================================================= 0021. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00042.html Subject: C.3 First-Applicable policy-combining alg inconsistent From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:29:27 -0500 (EST) In the description of the policy-combining algorithm for FirstApplicable, lines 4752-4754 say: if error occurs while evaluating a policy, then evaluation shall continue looking for an applicable policy, returning Indeterminate only if no applicable policy found. But lines 4755-4758 say: if error occurs while evaluation a policy, then evaluation shall halt and policy set shall evaluate to "Indeterminate". Lines 4752-4754 should be deleted. That would be consistent with the pseudo-code and with the "safety" of not allowing any "Permit" if there is an Indeterminate that should have returned a Deny. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved deleting pdf:4752-4754. This removes the first, incorrect description of how the PDP behaves in the face of an error and retains the second, correct description. ACTIONS: Delete lines pdf:4752-4754 ========================================================================= 0022. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00044.html Subject: Section 5.24 From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:31:14 +0900 There is no description about the child element <xacml:SubjectAttributeDesignator> in Section 5.24. Some description should be added between Lines 2162 and 2163. CATEGORY: Incomplete. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved adding a description of SubjectAttributeDesignator. ACTIONS: Add the following before line pdf:2168: <SubjectAttributeDesignator> [Optional] A subject attribute argument. ========================================================================= 0023. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00045.html Subject: Line 308: The SAML prefix From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:41:02 +0900 In Line 308, the SAML prefix (saml:) is mentioned, but it never appears anywhere in the document. The line should be removed. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved removing line pdf:308 ACTIONS: Remove line pdf:308 ========================================================================= 0024. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00046.html Subject: Comments on the prefix xf From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:56:39 +0900 In Line 1295, the QName xf:yearMonthDuration should be replaced by the correct URI. In Line 1345, the QName xf:yearMonthDuration should be replaced by the correct URI. Appendix A14.7: In Lines 3759, 3766, 3773, 3782, 3790, 3796, the QName xf:yearMonthDuration should be replaced by the correct URI. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved using full uri. ACTIONS: In lines 1295 and 1345, use "http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators#yearMonthDuration" instead of "xf:yearMonthDuration" ========================================================================= 0025. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00047.html Subject: Line numbering is inconsistent From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:08:56 +0900 Line numbering is inconsistent between the PDF file and the Word file. I have downloaded them from: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/repository/cs-xacml-core-01.doc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/repository/cs-xacml-core-01.pdf An example: In the PDF file Line 43 is a blank line. In the Word file Line 43 is about the copyright. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Commenters should specify which version is being used. Accept comments from either version. In the future, Bill Parducci will generate both versions before we post either so that we can verify that numbers match. ACTIONS: None. ========================================================================= 0026. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00048.html Subject:The type of the RequestContextPath attribute From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:34:25 +0900 The current type of the RequestContextPath attribute is xs:anyURI. (Section 5.31) I don't think that a valid XPath expression is always a valid URI (according to RFC2396). So I think the type should be xs:string rather than xs:anyURI. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the XML-Signature specification, the type of XPath expressions is xs:string. Follow-on: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00068.html Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:36:40 +0900 For example, /xml[2] is not a valid URI. CATEGORY: Incorrect. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved changing DataType in line 2421 to xs:string. ACTIONS: Change line 2421 DataType from xs:anyURI to xs:string. ========================================================================= 0027. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00049.html Subject: Function Identifiers in Section 10.3.8 From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:11:44 +0900 Section 10.3.8 uses QName as function identifiers. Don't use the namespace prefix "function" and replace all the qnames with the corresponding URIs. Remove line 3302 (xmlns:function="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function"). CATEGORY: Inconsistent. SEE ALSO: #29,30 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. Use full urn; remove xmlns:function line. ACTIONS: Use full "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:" throughout the specification rather than just "function:". Remove line 3302 that describes the xmlns:function. ========================================================================= 0028. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00050.html Subject: equality & set/bag functions From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:34:32 -0500 The set and bag functions (along with others), are defined as type-[name] where this is expanded to include one function for each standard type. Presumably this includes the two duration attribute types. One of the bag functions and several of the set functions also specify that their definitions are based on using the type-equal function for the coresponding type. The equality functions, however, are defined individually for each type, and no equal functions are defined for the two duration types. So, the question: should there be equality functions defined for the two duration types, or should certain type-[name] functions not be able to handle the two duration types? It seems like one of those two must change to make this work. CATEGORY: Incomplete. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. Add dayTimeDuration-equal and yearMonthDuration-equal functions. Use XQuery semantics. ACTIONS: Add following text at end of Section A.14.1, following line pdf:3639: o dayTimeDuration-equal This function SHALL take two arguments of type "http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators#dayTimeDuration" and SHALL return an "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#boolean". This function shall perform its evaluation according to the "op:dayTimeDuration-equal" function [XQO Section 8.3.5]. Note that the lexical representation of each argument is converted to a value expressed in fractional seconds [XQO Section 8.2.2]. o yearMonthDuration-equal This function SHALL take two arguments of type "http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators#yearMonthDuration" and SHALL return an "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#boolean". This function shall perform its evaluation according to the "op:yearMonthDuration-equal" function [XQO Section 8.3.2]. Note that the lexical representation of each argument is converted to a value expressed in integer months [XQO Section 8.2.1]. ========================================================================= 0029. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00053.html Subject: The prefix "function:" is used in Section 4 Examples From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:34:21 +0900 The namespace prefix "function:" is used in the explanation for the examples in Section 4. There are too many places where it is used and so I cannot list all here. All should be replaced with the correct URIs. E.g., function:string-equal Function:string-equal (Capital F is used) function:and function:string-one-and-only function:date-less-or-equal function:date-one-and-only CATEGORY: Inconsistent. SEE ALSO: #27,30 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved using full urn. ACTIONS: Use full "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:" throughout the specification rather than just "function:". ========================================================================= 0030. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00054.html Subject: The prefix "function:" is used in Appendix A From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:39:38 +0900 The namespace prefix "function:" is used in Appendix A. There are too many places where it is used and so I cannot list all here. All should be replaced with the correct URIs. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. SEE ALSO: #27,29 STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved using full urn. ACTIONS: Use full "urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:function:" throughout the specification rather than just "function:". ========================================================================= 0031. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00055.html Subject: The default value of the MustBePresent attribute(Section 5.26) From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:08:50 +0900 The default value "false" of the MustBePresent attribute is NOT specified in the schema in Section 5.26. It should be added. CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved adding default="false". This is correct in the schema. ACTIONS: Add default="false" to line pdf:2203 ========================================================================= 0032. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00058.html Subject: Problems understanding XACML spec From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:40:25 +0000 I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to say in the XACML spec: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/repository/draft-xacml-schema-policy-18d.doc ACTIONS: Anne Anderson sent Graham Klyne a message explaining that the public review is being held with respect to XACML 1.0, and not draft 18d. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00060.html Comments may still apply, since they are fairly general, so I have listed them below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0032a. The description of a rule seems to be inadequately motivated. The description in section 2 (background) says "The <Rule> element contains a boolean expression that can be evaluated in isolation..." which doesn't do anything to prepare me for the description I find in section 3.3.1. I'm finding it particularly hard to see (a) what this Boolean expression is evaluated over (it seems to have something to do with the rule target), and (b) how the Boolean result relates to the evaluation of the rule. I can see that a Boolean true results in Permit or Deny depending on the value of the rule's effect field, but what happens if the Boolean value is false? As far as I can tell, understanding this is crucial to understanding all the other stuff about combining rules and policies. CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Discussed 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved in general. It is unclear. ACTION ITEM: [Tim Moses] propose an introductory paragraph for 3.3.1 motivating Rule. ACTIONS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0032b. Under what circumstances is a rule found to be "NotApplicable"? CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: We believe this is specified clearly in Section 7.5 of XACML 1.0. ACTIONS: No change. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0032c. I also find the reference to the fact that a rule may "inherit" target information from a policy is particularly obscure. It seems to me that the idea of a rule is fundamental to understanding this specification, but that vital idea is not adequately explained. It may be that the information is present somewhere in this document, but it is a big and complicated document and I can't tell what's important. CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Approved. This is not clear. ACTIONS: Lines 631-632. Change wording to say "Rule uses the <Target> of its parent Policy element." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0032d. I think more attention needs to be paid to the order in which concepts are introduced. I would expect section 2 to deal with this, but it seems some important ideas are not being adequately explained. CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: Please submit any specific important ideas that are not being adequately explained or are in the wrong order in Section 2 in the XACML 1.0 specification. Note that Section 2 only covers key concepts, with full detail in later sections. ACTIONS: None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0032f. I also think there's an over-dependence in the text on abbreviations that are introduced in the glossary. There are many special terms, and ordinary words used with special meaning, and it's not reasonable to assume that someone not familiar with them to absorb them on one pass through the glossary. CATEGORY: Unclear. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: We believe this has been improved in XACML 1.0: terms from the glossary are bolded in XACML 1.0 to indicate they have special meaning. This is a specialist area, and we expect people to refer to the glossary until they are acquainted with the terms. Please submit any specific places that are not clear in the 1.0 version. ACTIONS: None. ========================================================================= 0033. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00061.html Subject: map function From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:32 -0500 I'm a little concerned with the definition of the map function. Every other function and attribute in the spec has a well defined type associated with it, but the map function does not. Even things like the bag functions are defined as type-* so that each of the bag functions returns a well defined type (ie, there is a uniquely named function for each bag function that returns each attribute type). The map function, however, is simply defined as returning a bag of some type. For consistency, and to make sure that the strong typing present in the rest of the spec exists here too, I would suggest that the map function be redefined as type-map, such that there is a named map function for each type in the spec. I think the functionality being provided by map makes sense, I just think it should be clear what types of bags the map function returns. CATEGORY: Alternative. STATUS: Discussed 11/21/02. RESPONSE: ACTION ITEM: [Polar][Daniel] Provide opinions on this comment. ACTIONS: ========================================================================= 0034. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00062.html Subject: XCAML Spec version 1.0 - Example 2, Rule 1 From: Jahan Moreh <jmoreh@sigaba.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:09:54 -0800 Section 4.2.3. Rule 1, line 1027 states that: "A person may read any record for which he or she is the designated patient". Section 4.2.4.1., Line 1036 starts the XACML rule instance for rule 1, which I assumed is the rule expressed in English in line 1027. Line 1095-1111 (the condition) defines a condition for matching the policy-number attribute from the <Subject> with the policy-number in the patient record. This condition does not match the English statement (A person may read any record for which he or she is the designated patient) stated earlier. Am I missing something or is this an inconsistency? CATEGORY: Inconsistent. STATUS: Resolved 11/21/02. RESPONSE: In Rule 1, "person" in the text descriptions is referred to by "policy-number" in the <Condition>. "policy-number" is used as the patient ID. We agree this is unclear, since "policy" has other meanings. ACTIONS: Use "patient-number" as the attribute name rather than "policy-number" in the examples. Also in 1027 Rule 1, say "A person, identified by patient number, may ....". Also, augment line 1166-1168 to describe that the person is being described by the person's patient-number. =========================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC