RE: [xacml-dev] XACML 2

["Diego M. Gonzalez" <diegog@lagash.com>]

Hi,
 
I have finished the code that loads the policies and makes difference for both versions. But I'll like to start with a TDD environment for which I have to create some conformance tests with the new schema and namespaces. 
 
Have you started with the conformance tests? Do you want to use a common place to store them so any implementor can get the tests, and provide feedback about them?
 
Thanks,
Diego Gonzalez
Lagash Systems SA

________________________________

From: seth proctor [mailto:Seth.Proctor@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wed 9/22/2004 1:19 AM
To: Diego M. Gonzalez
Cc: xacml-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xacml-dev] XACML 2




Diego M. Gonzalez wrote:
> Seems the scenario you are proposing about references between versions
> is covered with the elements that extends IdReferenceType
> (PolicySetIdReference and PolicyIdReference) now the references must add
> some information about versioning: Version, EarliestVersion and
> LatestVersion. The section 5.21 defines the matching behavior.

Actually that's a little different. The new feature in 2.0 is about
revision numbers on policies, not which version of XACML is acceptable
(which is what I raised). The new version feature has two components: it
lets me put a version number in a Policy or PolicySet (eg, this is
version 2.3.7 of this policy) and then lets me put a required version or
range of versions in a reference (so, for instance, I can reference any
versions of the policy later than 2.3). If more than one version is
available, you're supposed to use the latest version available. Note
that these are optional attributes, so you can ignore them in your
policies and references, and you get the same behavior as in 1.x. I
suggested this feature for 2.0, so if you don't like it complaints go to
me :)

The original issue I raised had to do with the version of XACML a policy
uses. So for instance, let's say we have an XACML 2.0 policy with a
reference to an XACML 1.1 policy. How should we handle this? My instinct
is to allow the engine to process the 2.0 policy using the 2.0 spec, but
process the referenced policy using the 1.1 spec, since the result that
comes back means the same in 1.1 and 2.0. I suspect, however, that I'll
discover some corner cases when I actually try doing this. Dunno. We'll
see...


seth