RE: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11

[Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>]

Polar - I propose moving A.3 Structured Types, A.5 Bags and A.6. Expressions
to Section 7.  In the case of Structured Types, a reference from each
definition of Attribute Value would be necessary.  I'll ensure that no
normative requirements, that are not duplicated elsewhere, are dropped by
the deletion of sections from Appendix A.

Of course, this is all just a ploy to ensure that someone proof-reads WD 06.

All the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Polar Humenn [mailto:polar@syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:27 PM
To: Tim Moses
Cc: 'Seth Proctor'; 'XACML'
Subject: RE: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11



If that is the case, then other sections seem to be misplaced as well. For
example, should A.3 Structured Types go under <AttributeValue> duplicated
each in the Policy and the Context sections?

As sections 5 and 6 are listed by element type only, what about how we
describe A.5 Bags and A.6. Expressions, which are relevant to many "element"
types?

In any case, the normative requirements in sections A.7-A.11 shouldn't be
removed completely. They should be *moved* to the appropriate place.

Cheers,
-Polar


On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Tim Moses wrote:

> Polar - The map, as I understood it, was that:
>
> Sections 5 and 6 would describe processing rules directly related to a 
> particular element type;
>
> Section 7 would describe any processing rules that could not be 
> associated with a particular element type; and
>
> Appendix A would describe standard data-types and functions.
>
> We haven't followed this map consistently.  For example, A11 describes 
> the <Function> element and really provides no additional value over 
> that provided by 5.28 Element <Function>.
>
> Where several elements require identical processing, it seems 
> appropriate to reference a common section in Section 7.  Then Appendix 
> A should be reserved for describing the data-types and functions 
> identified with a URI.
>
> Are there objections to this approach?  All the best.  Tim.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polar Humenn [mailto:polar@syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:16 AM
> To: Seth Proctor
> Cc: Tim Moses; 'XACML'
> Subject: Re: [xacml] Removing A7 - A11
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Seth Proctor wrote:
>
> >
> > > Colleagues - I would like to eliminate Section A7 - A11.  Their 
> > > crime? Egregious redundancy.  If you would like to submit a plea 
> > > for clemency, please do so.  All the best.  Tim.
> >
> > Sounds fine to me. You may be able to include A.6 as well, since 
> > most (though maybe not all of it) is also pretty redundant. You 
> > know, as long as you're killing stuff :)
>
> I don't think it is that simple or egregious. There are normative 
> requirements on the semantics in those sections that are not specified 
> elsewhere. You'd have to move those requirements to the syntax 
> section, which might muddle the waters a bit. The syntax section 
> basically just explains the structure and what's allowed where. 
> Appendix A explains the semantics in relation to the semantics of 
> other the elements. I think the appendix would read kind of like 
> something was missing, if those sections where simply tossed.
>
> Cheers,
> -Polar
>
>
> > seth
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> > roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_wor
> > kg
> > roup.php.
> >
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workg
> roup.php.
>