[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xacml] Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations>present but not supported
We made support for Obligations optional because support might infringe on IBM's IP claims. Anne On 18 November, Polar Humenn writes: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but not supported > From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu> > To: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@sun.com> > Subject: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present > but not supported > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:40:30 -0500 (EST) > > > Why doesn't the PDP support Obligations? I thought it did. I thought the > issue was whether the PEP supported Obligations, of which I think we > solved. > > Isn't it all laid out pretty well, on how the obligations are collected up > the evaluation, right? It's in the schema, right? > > I really don't like the PDP returing "Deny" for something "wrong", as if > it is taking the presumption that Deny is the "safe" answer for you. > > If anything, if this really is indeed the case, I believe the "answer" > should be Intdeterminate. > > Too busy at the OMG meeting,.... > -Polar > > > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC