Re: [xacml] Moving ahead with 3.0

[Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:11 AM, Erik Rissanen wrote:

> It might be a good idea if someone who is a native English speaker  
> proofreads the docs, but we can wait with that until the end.

I can do this.

> Issue 12, more general conclusions: Bill and I posted a working  
> draft about generalized obligations. We have not received much  
> feedback on this. I propose that we defer this to post 3.0.

I think this is a good idea. Once delegation is behind us perhaps  
their will be greater interest in pursuing this.

> Related to this is the issue about the timing attribute for  
> obligations which was proposed by David Chadwick. I put this as a  
> feature in the obligation draft. If we defer the obligation draft,  
> do we want to include the timing attribute in the 3.0 core? In my  
> opinion this depends on what we expect will happen with the  
> obligation work. My preference is that we after 3.0 core is done  
> quickly complete the obligation work, in which case the timing  
> should go there, not in the core now. But if the obligation profile  
> will never happen, then we should include the timing attribute in  
> the core now.

I believe that it should be incorporated into the Obligations draft,  
adding it to the current (highly implementation dependent)  
Obligations model doesn't buy much I think.

b

smime.p7s