RE: [xacml] Request and Response Context Schemas - Take 2

[Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>]

On 5 June, Flinn, Don writes: RE: [xacml] Request and Response Context Schemas - Take 2
 > Why do you want to remove the AttributeFamily?  Our
 > implementation intends to use this value to handle the
 > Federation case as I explained at the F2F.  Yes, one could
 > pass the AttributeFamily by combining it with the
 > AttributeName, but then one has to parse the AttributeName to
 > get the AttributeFamily.  The AttributeFamily as a separate
 > element or attribute is cleaner and more understandable to
 > implementers.

I did not know enough about the pro's and con's of the two
approaches to follow your explanation of the Federation case at
the F2F.  Could you send me a brief summary?

Here is my view:
 - AttributeFamily and AttributeName are linked semantically and
   syntactically and need to be associated.  A URI is designed to
   do exactly that kind of linkage.
 - Code that has already been written to handle URIs can be used
   if AttributeName includes the "family/namespace/protocol"
   element.

What does Federation need from AttributeFamily that it can not
get from a URI?

Anne
-- 
Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692