Re: Final text of ballot

[Marlena Erdos <marlena@us.ibm.com>]

My votes, along with some comments. --  Marlena

{AP-1} Generalized or specialized solution

Answer:
1. We should develop a generalized solution as an interim step to
satisfying the specific requirements identified by the Use Cases
sub-committee.


{AP-2} Questions the PEP can ask the PDP

Answer:
1.      "Yes/No/Can't decide".

COMMENT/Question:  I'm fine with #3 in the context of an authorization
decision.  I thought    this is what was meant, but now I see that the
wording of #3 doesn't mention an authZ decision..
   I'd like to vote as follows:
   Yes, for the PEP soliciting additional information as part of its
authorization decision request.
   No, for the PEP soliciting attributes (and just attributes) from a
PDP.  (Reason: This is not what I understand the PEP-PDP authZ interaction
to be about.  Doing an attribute query is a different matter than an
requesting an authorization decision (IMHO). (I'd hate to have both
a 'real' attribute query and also one that is wearing the hide of
an authZ decision query.)



{AP-3}  Question: should we define a PDP-PDP protocol?
Answer:

2.      No.


{AP-4}  The number of assertions in a message
Question: How many assertions may appear in a single message?
Answer:

3.      An unlimited number.

COMMENT:  My feeling is that related assertions
might well be bundled together in a single message.  Having
"depends on" fields (or the like) that contain assertion references
doesn't strike me as sufficient.   That said, I don't feel very sure
about this, and would welcome more discussion.


{AP-5} Combining components
Answer:
1.      The model should explicitly identify that components of the model
may be combined.


{AP-6} Assertion validation component
Answer:
1.      The model should identify "assertion validation" as a separate
component.