Re: [xacml] XACML standard identifiers

[Seth Proctor <Seth.Proctor@Sun.COM>]

On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 21:27, Tim Moses wrote:
> Colleagues - This came up in a side conversation at the face-to-face ... I
> have defined all the identifiers as v2.0 identifiers.  I have not re-used
> the v1.0 identifiers and their definitions.  The reason for this is that the
> two specifications are not forward/backward compatible.  And, all
> definitions that have not changed would have to be omitted from normative
> sections of the v2.0 specification.  Naturally, if there is consensual
> preference, we can revert to v1.0 definitions.  What do people think?  All
> the best.  Tim.

Hi Tim. Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I don't think I fully
understood what you were proposing until I saw the latest draft.

Personally, I think we should leave the 1.0 identifiers wherever
possible, especially if nothing has changed between 1.x and 2.0 for that
identifier. For one thing, it helps people understand what existed in
1.x and what was added/changed in 2.0. For another, it makes it easier
for implementations. Also, what does this say about using 1.x
identifiers in a 2.0 policy? Is that legal?

That's my opinion, but I don't think it's a strong opinion, so if others
think we should rev all the identifiers, I'm probably ok with that. Just
want to make sure there's some discussion on this point :)


seth