xacml message

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

Subject: Re: [xacml] Generalization

From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>
To: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:41:55 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Tim Moses wrote:

> Of course, this approach would cause us to make Obligations a mandatory part
> of the standard.  But, nothing in this approach infringes on IBM's patent.

Well, then, they really wouldn't be "obligations" as such, now would they?
:)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [xacml] Generalization
  - From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM>

References:
- Generalization
  - From: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>

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