Re: [xacml] Action implication and propagation in XACML

[bill parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>]

actually, it is a good thing you brought it up because if you didn't, 
someone else would have! ('kitchen sinks' seem to thrive in 'committee 
specs' :o) i for one would prefer that we spend the time considering a 
number of resource models and attempt to come up with appropriate 
scoping terms (don't care for the idea of limiting applicability 
directly) before adding a YAKS (Yet Another Kitchen Sink) to the spec.

i say we pursue it.

b

Seth Proctor wrote:
[...]
> Of course, it's a slippery slope to changing
> the scope attribute to be an xs:anyURI and then
> letting that have much of the functionality we were
> looking for with implicit checks. Gah. I can't
> believe I even brought up that issue...
> 
> Bottom line, I'm kinda ambivalent on the Ascendants
> issue. What do other people think?