Hi,
I understand your point. At that rate, though, you could argue we should have stuck with XML :-) Yes it is true that programs will send the requests and that developers will write those programs one-off. My experience is that there are a lot of developers out there that just give up at the first sign of the slightest bit of complexity. I want to make XACML as simple as possible. Note BTW that what I am doing here in the JSON profile is something we had in XACML 2.0: resource-specific elements. In XACML 3.0, we went down the path of generalization. I love the idea of generalization but how often do customers use a category other than the 4 standard ones? In my experience, rarely.
The example you mention is quite clearly an MDP. I think it's stated in the profile. Is it not?
Our concern – I mean my team’s – is more about safety/security. When the syntax allows two ways of writing the same thing, or one generic way with some exceptions, it makes validation trickier and more error-prone. (I wrote a JSON schema for the JSON Profile and this makes quite a difference in complexity.)
Your previous argument can be used here: you wrote the validation. It was a one-off effort. It's done.
Re. the JSON schema, how did you do that? Would you be willing to share it with us? The schema could become the normative form.
Thanks,
David.