Re: [xacml] Summary of Discussion about Submitting XACML (and SAML)to the ITU

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

On 5 September, Polar Humenn writes: Re: [xacml] Summary of Discussion about Submitting XACML (and SAML) to the ITU 
 > > b) Take another look at submitting 1.1 as a OASIS standard. Part of the
 > > reason for not submitting 1.1 was that there was no strong reason do do so.
 > 
 > I disagree. Version 1.1 has updated fixes and should be approved and this 
 > can happen much more readily than any 2.0 work.
 > 
 > > Perhaps this is the reason. I am pretty sure with a little effort we could
 > > come up with the necessary attestations, assuming the same criteria as for
 > > 1.0. We could do the public review and submission in parallel with the 2.0
 > > work. I don't expect a lot of comments. The new 20% rule is an issue, but
 > > Karl says this is likely to be reversed soon and in any event we will have
 > > to face it for 2.0.

I'm not so sanguine about the attestations.  Sun's Open Source
XACML Implementation is up-to-date with 1.1, but I have not heard
from any other implementations.  At the time we discussed trying
for OASIS Standard, there were no other attestations offered or
even suggested as possibilities.

I'm assuming there is at least one other vendor about ready to
attest now :-), but unless we can get a third, this option is not
open to us.

I would love to see 1.1 move to OASIS Standard if possible,
however.

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