Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.

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

Polar Humenn wrote:
> I guess, I can get around saying my PEP understands "strings", and
> therefore, all obligations, as they are just "strings" and "discharges"
> all of them to the bit bucket.

you can, but it would be a non XACML compliant PEP. i would suggest that if you 
are wholly against the use of obligations that you have your PEP generate an 
ERROR if given such (and avoid being used in an environment where that may occur ;o)

based on your concerns i am going to take a shot at the wording for collective 
consideration.

b