OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [xacml] Comments for discussion tomorrow


A list of all comments received to date against the 1.0
specification is attached.  I suggest using this as the basis for
our deliberations at tomorrow's meeting.

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

Title:       Comments on XACML 1.0 Committee Specification
Maintainer:  Anne Anderson
Version:     1.1, 02/11/13 (yy/mm/dd)
Original Source: /net/labeast.east/files2/east/info/projects/isrg/xacml/docs/SCCS/s.Comments.txt

This file contains a link to every comment received on the
xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list reporting any
kind of problem with the specification since the public review
was announced on November 8, 2002.  Each comment is broken down
into specific sub-comments, and the response to each is
described, along with any actions to be taken by the TC.

This version of the file contains e-mail up through
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00010.html

CATEGORIES
----------
Editorial:    Formatting error or formatting inconsistency.
Inconsistent: Specification says one thing in one place and
              another thing in another place.
Incomplete:   Specification omits information required for full
              specification of a feature.
Unclear:      Description of feature is not clear or is ambiguous.
Undesirable:  Feature is not desirable.
Alternative:  Proposed alternative to a feature
======================================================================
COMMENTS
======================================================================
0001. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00003.html
Subject: An editorial comment on the XACML 1.0 document
From: Satoshi Hada <SATOSHIH@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 02:16:43 +0900

Appendix B.1 says that two namespaces are defined, but there are
three URIs there.  The URI for XACML datatypes should be removed?

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  

DISCUSSION:
Affects "B.1.XACML namespaces", PDF lines 4332-4333
=============================================================================
0002. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00004.html
Subject: xs:time
From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:33:59 -0500

Sections A.2 (Primative types) and B.4 (Data types) include date
and dateTime, but not time. The time type is used by many
functions and at least one standard attribute, and should be on
those list.

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
SEE ALSO: 0004
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0003. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00005.html
Subject: resubmission: v_1.0 - niggling editorial nuggets
From: bill parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:01:51 -0800
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003a. line 520:

'...element from each of the policies or policy'
the word 'policy' is *half* bold.

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003b. line 793:

'[c01]		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>'
inconsistent font (times)
actually, upon further inspection, the document seems to use
proportionally spaced, sans serif fonts (e.g. 'arial') in the
listings and example code starting at line 641 and continuing to
line 826, at which point it uses the correct font, non
proportional serif font (courier).

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003c. line 1039:

starting with line 1039 the examples are color encoded. the
snippets prior to this are not. given the darkened background i
think that the color makes it harder to read (and print), but
either way i think that it should be consistent (sections 5 & 6
go back and forth twixt the two). this continues thorough
[portions] of the primer.

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003d. line 3278:

'xacml:Policy:PolicySet'
there seems to be an extraneous border line above the row in the
table

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003e. line 3291:

'Urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:environment'
there seems to be extraneous border lines above each of the rows
in this table

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003f. line 3385:

'<AttributeValue'
snippet font (should be 'courier')

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003g. line 3399:

'[IBMDSA]'
i thought that the IBMDSA reference was replaced with an IEEE spec throughout the doc, or was this only in a specific instance?

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003h. line 4277:

'first argument of  Anderson@sun.com?'
question mark should be quotation mark

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003i. line 4434:

'      urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:resource:scope'
leading spaces or indentation (should be left margin aligned)

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003j. finally, there seems to be some squooshing going on with
lines 2618, 2742, 2778 in the pdf. can others confirm?

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0004. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00006.html
Subject: followup to xs:time comment
From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:51:42 -0500

all of the functions defined as type-* (like the
type-one-and-only function) need to have a time-* version added
in 10.3.8 (and maybe elsewhere, though I don't think so)

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
SEE ALSO: 0002
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0005. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00007.html
Subject: Inconsistent specification of <*Match> elements and-match functions
From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:28:14 -0500 (EST)

Problem: MatchId functions used in a target take one
   AttributeDesignator or AttributeSelector argument, and one
   literal AttributeValue argument.  The order of the two
   arguments is specified differently in different parts of the
   specification.  Also, the *-match functions can only be used
   in a Target if the order of their arguments (template,
   specific value) agree with the order of arguments in a MatchId
   function (the AttributeDesignator or AttributeSelector, and
   the literal value).

Recommendation:
 Option 1:
   Specify that the first argument to each *-match function is
   the specific value to be compared to the template, and the
   second argument is the template.  To be consistent, rename
   "regexp-string-match" to "string-regexp-match".  This requires
   the least change to the specification.

 Option 2:
   Specify that the first argument to a MatchId function is a
   literal AttributeValue and the second argument is the
   AttributeDesignator or AttributeSelector.

Text locations where references occur:
 1 must change if Option 1 selected
 2 must change if Option 2 selected

2 - Every occurrence of <SubjectMatch, <ResourceMatch, or
  <ActionMatch except as called out below: Change order of
  AttributeSelector or AttributeDesignator argument and
  AttributeValue argument

2 - Section A.12 lines 3491-3493: reword as follows:

   "Each argument to the named function MUST match the
  appropriate primitive types for the explict attribute value and
  the following <AttributeDesignator> or <AttributeSelector>
  element, ...
  
1 - Section A.12, lines 3493-3496: reword as follows:

   "... such that an element of the bag returned by the
  <AttributeDesignator> or <AttributeSelector> element is placed
  as the first argument to the function, and the explicit
  attribute value is placed as the second argument to the
  function."

1 - Section A.14.12, lines 4250-4281: reverse order of arguments
  in the specifications for the -match functions, such that the
  first argument is the full value to be compared to the template
  or dominating value, and the second argument is the template or
  dominating (higher in the tree of values) value.

2 - Section A.14.13, lines 4306-4313: the specification of the
  xpath-node-match function probably needs to change to be
  consistent with the above if xpath-node-match is to be allowed
  in a Target expression.  Note that several examples use
  xpath-node-match as MatchId functions, and line 3503 implies
  that this is permissable, but lines 3535-3540 indicate that
  xpath-node-match is NOT permissable in a MatchId function.

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.  Unclear.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0006. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00008.html
Subject: present function
From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:00:52 -0500

Section A14.5 still lists a present function. I think the decision was to
remove this functionality entirely for the time being.

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0007. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00009.html
Subject: a few typos
From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:08:13 -0500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0007a. 10.3.7: dayTime and yearMonth durations should read
"xquery-operators" not "xquey-operaqtors"

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0007b. 10.3.8: function:rfc822Name-equal is listed as
rfc822name-equal (lower case 'n' in 'name')

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0008. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00010.html
Subject: ...IsPresent and Qualified...
From: John Merrells <merrells@jiffysoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:40:59 -0800
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0008a. In draft 18f section 5.30, 5.31, and 5.32 documents the 
AttributeIsPresent elements,
but the 18f schema doesn't contain these.

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0008b. Also, the 18f schema contains the
QualifiedSubjectAttributeDesignator element, but this isn't
described in the 18f draft, it first appears in the conformance
tables 10.3.1

CATEGORY: Inconsistent.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================
0009. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml-comment/200211/msg00010.html
Subject: Urn versus urn
From: Seth Proctor <seth.proctor@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:03:53 -0500

in a number of sections in 10.3 (10.3.2, 10.3.4, 10.3.5, 10.3.6,
10.3.7) the 'u' in 'urn' has become a 'U'

CATEGORY: Editorial.
STATUS: Not yet discussed.
RESPONSE: 
ACTIONS:  
======================================================================


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC