Re: [xacml-users] Help on Condition ? <-- Obligations

[Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

No, sorry, small "a". Unintentional term overload. :-P

b

On Dec 11, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Oleg Gryb wrote:

> ... if it's just an attribute that provides an explanation for a  
> decision then I would not have a possibility to use an expression as  
> attribute's value, assuming that by attribute you meant an XML  
> attribute.
>
> In my example I need more flexibility because explanation is an  
> expression.
>
> If you meant <Attribute> from the XACML spec then it should suffice,  
> because it contains <AttributeValue> elements, which are expressions.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net>
>> Subject: Re: [xacml-users] Help on Condition ? <-- Obligations
>> To: oleg@gryb.info
>> Cc: "Seth Proctor" <Seth.Proctor@sun.com>, xacml-users@lists.oasis-open.org 
>> , "Balaji Kannadassan" <balajika@nortel.com>
>> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 2:11 PM
>> There is a current proposal to create dynamic Obligations
>> within V3. We are just working through a discussion re: if
>> Obligations should handle the "decision advice"
>> aspects or if we should have a specific attribute for
>> indicating why decision was made.
>>
>> b
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Oleg Gryb wrote:
>>
>>> In regards specific requirements, please do consider
>> adding expressions to obligations as I and other people had
>> suggested in the past. It would make the obligations more
>> dynamic. Example: I want to return an error message:
>> "The access to the bill pay service has been denied
>> because you exceeded the total maximum of $10000 in 6-month
>> period" where $10000 and 6-month are environment
>> attributes. I didn't find a way of creating such an
>> obligation within current spec.
>
>
>
>