[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xacml] Action implication and propagation in XACML
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?