[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xacml] Groups - xacml-3.0-obligation-v1-wd-03.zip uploaded
On Feb 25, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Erik Rissanen wrote: > I think we should support both. I haven't really thought through yet > how these two can interact and be perhaps combined. My gut feeling > is that the atomicity guarantees should be supersets of the > causality guarantees, that is, if you ask for the atomicity > guarantee, you get the causality as well. This is what spawned my initial proposal a while ago for a hierarchy between ObligationsFamilies. <history> This begat the discussion of where to capture such information, which begat the conversation about a "root" policy, which begat my realization that the Decision Context is in reality the "root" for any given decision, which finally begat my suggestion that this be captured in the Context Policy. </history> The idea behind this approach is that the unbound nature of Obligations makes it difficult to define generalities like "atomicity supersedes causality". By creating a hierarchy within the XACML Policy specification I believe we have the ability to unambiguously define precedence (at least in the decisions) without complex combining rules or external "black box URIs". Again, this was just the starting point for the initial idea so there is a lot of room for improvement now that we have tangible schemas to start measuring it against :) b
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]