Re: [xacml] FW: SAML AI 0076 - XACML Policy Transport

[bill parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>]

i agree. i believe having the XACML TC take it on with the intent of 
delivering a 'complete solution' for consideration to SAML will be 
considerably more efficient. if the sentiment changes toward the 
abstract approach later we will have to go through the same basic 
process to define our requirements anyway, so there seems to be little risk.

b

Hal Lockhart wrote:
> On the SAML call yesterday (10/14) the few people who expressed an opinion
> felt that this was more appropriate to do in XACML. They felt that if we
> wanted to introduce an abstract "policy" element which could contain any
> kind of policy, not just XACML and then define the XACML constructs below
> that, it might make sense to have SAML define abstract policy layer.
> Otherwise the feeling was this was more appropriate to do in XACML.
> 
> Unless somebody feels the abstract policy layer is important, I suggest we
> simply do it as described below. If at a future time there is a push for an
> abstract layer, we can adjust accordingly. DOing it in the XACML TC will
> also make it easier to deal with any interactions with other proposed 2.0
> changes, such as to Target.
> 
> My feeling is that this will have to be a separate profile. Any opinions on
> this?
> 
> Hal