Re: [xacml] Generalization

[Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM>]

It is my understanding (standard IANAL disclaimers) that IBM's
patent covers only a specific way of implementing Obligations:
one in which the PDP itself interprets and fulfills the
Obligations by use of plug-in modules.  This is NOT any kind of
official statement from Sun, just my personal and private
understanding.  I encourage others to read the IBM patent for
themselves if in doubt.

I don't think Tim's generalization and its typical use of
Obligations would use such an implementation, since the standard
model is that the PEP interprets and fulfills the Obligations,
and not the PDP.

Anne

On 15 November, Polar Humenn writes: Re: [xacml] Generalization
 > From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>
 > To: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>
 > Cc: 'XACML' <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
 > Subject: Re: [xacml] Generalization
 > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:41:55 -0500 (EST)
 > 
 > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Tim Moses wrote:
 > 
 > > Of course, this approach would cause us to make Obligations a mandatory part
 > > of the standard.  But, nothing in this approach infringes on IBM's patent.
 > 
 > Well, then, they really wouldn't be "obligations" as such, now would they?
 > :)
 > 
 > 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_workgroup.php.
 > 

-- 
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