SPML Schema comments (was RE: [provision] RE: Ideas from XACML 1.0)

[Jeff Bohren <jbohren@opennetwork.com>]

Sorry I am just now getting to this, but I have been on vacation. 
 
The choice construct is needed in the Indentifier definition because it is meant to be a choice between a simple id string or a more complicated construct. The only more complicated construct the committee has agreed to at this time is the SAML Subject Statement. So for the v1 SPML spec, the Identifier will be a choice between a simple ID and a SAML Subject Statement. I did not put that in this version of the core schema, but it will be in the next one.
 
I will make the location of the DSML V2 and SAML schemas in the next version point to the online versions.
 
The extended request and extended response stuff is a place holder pending future work.
 
Jeff Bohren

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com] 
	Sent: Fri 12/20/2002 4:47 PM 
	To: 'Darran Rolls'; provision@lists.oasis-open.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [provision] RE: Ideas from XACML 1.0
	
	
	Darran - I couldn't find your message that called for comments on the schema, so I'm replying to this one.  Hope it doesn't confuse.  Four minor things ...
	 
	1. The <choice> construct in complexType "Identifier" is not required.
	2. I think the operationIdentifier in complexType "ExtendedRequest" should be of type xs:anyURI, then it can identify any non-standard operation in the form of a URI.
	3. Can we arrange for the schemaLocation in the import statement to point to the actual v2.0 DSML schema?
	4. Should not the extendedResponse be simply of type SpmlResponse?
	 
	Unfortunately (No, what am I saying, fortunately) I will be on vacation next week, so I can't join you on Monday.  Good luck and have a great break.  All the best.  Tim.

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Darran Rolls [mailto:Darran.Rolls@waveset.com]
		Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:01 PM
		To: DeSouza, Edwin; provision@lists.oasis-open.org
		Subject: RE: [provision] RE: Ideas from XACML 1.0
		
		

		I agree, I picked out these same sections in [1]. In fact, the draft I put out there was taken directly from the xacml core spec document draft.  I intend to have an update for this available before the end of the week.

		 

		[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/provision/200211/msg00025.html

		 

		--------------------------------------------------------

		Darran Rolls                      http://www.waveset.com

		Waveset Technologies Inc          drolls@waveset.com 

		(512) 657 8360                    

		--------------------------------------------------------

		 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: DeSouza, Edwin [mailto:edesouza@jamcracker.com] 
		Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 12:40 PM
		To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
		Subject: [provision] RE: Ideas from XACML 1.0

		 

		Hi folks,

		As you know, SPML's Hal Lockhart is the Co-Chair of XACML.  They have just published their 1.0 spec.  

		http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200212/msg00100.html

		 

		SPML can leverage ideas from XACML.

		 

		In particular, I recommend reading the following sections:

		-- Section 3 (Models)

		-- Section 7 (Functional Requirements)

		-- Section 4 (Examples)

		 

		Hppy Holidays!

		 

		Edwin.

			-----Original Message-----
			From: DeSouza, Edwin 
			Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:36 AM
			To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
			Subject: Ideas from XACML 1.0

			Hi folks,

			As you know, SPML's Hal Loc

			 

			http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200212/msg00100.html