Re: [xacml] Brief summary of yesterday's focus group call

[Bill Parducci <bparducci@gluecode.com>]

to be honest i have not spent much time evaluating the verbiage. rather, 
i have been intrigued by the schematic possibilities the <conclusion> 
construct appear to introduce. perhaps a refinement of the verbiage will 
address your concerns and i am sure tim is open to revision.

fyi: i have offered to incorporate my use case scenarios into tim's 
proposal (as well as what i have perceived as erik's "fall back 
decision" use case); perhaps this will help clarify the position of the 
value of the concept.

the focus group is the next logical place to discuss this, however, i 
suspect that that f2f will bear the most fruit as it seems that there is 
no substitute for a white board and synchronous discussion ;o)

i intend to have an update to tim's proposal before the next plenary 
meeting.

b


Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> Bill,
> 
> The current draft that I have from Tim states "Generalization of the 
> XACML syntax and processing model will permit its application to other 
> types of policy, such as management policy, without adversely impacting 
> its use for access control." and the charter says "The XACML Technical 
> Committee will define a core XML schema for representing authorization 
> and entitlement policies, also called XACML."
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong and the "generalization" is around access control (which 
> is not how I read Tim's draft with the various rule sets) and the term 
> "generalization" is just a bad term. Sorry I was not on the focus call, 
> maybe we can get an overview and discussion on this weeks call ?
> 
> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122