RE: [security-services] Action Item A23

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

All,

	Yes, if you dispense with Single/multiple Assertion distinction you
might as well flatten out that level of the hierarchy and just have
Assertion.

		Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris McLaren [mailto:cmclaren@netegrity.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:31 PM
> To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [security-services] Action Item A23
> 
> 
> Irving says:
> 
> > My understanding was that the abstract <Assertion> element 
> in core-19
> > existed so that it could be specialized to <SingleAssertion> and
> > <MultipleAssertion>. Now that we no longer have the
> > distinction, I believe
> > we no longer need the <AbstractAssertion> element. I suggest
> > we fold its
> > contents into Chris' new <Assertion> element and remove
> > <AbstractAssertion>.
> 
> I'm not sure that's the reason why the element is there now, 
> but I'm all for
> removing the element from the specification unless someone 
> has a good reason
> for keeping it. My suggestion to rename it to <AbstractAssertion> was
> entirely based on the assumption that it existed for a 
> reason; if it doesn't
> lets throw it away, and if it does let's rename it to 
> something appropriate
> for that reason.
> 
> C.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf