Re: FW: [xacml] Groups - Export Control - U.S. (EC-US)

[Anil Saldhana <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com>]

To the xacml list - some comments from Paul.

Tyson, Paul H wrote:
> I am not yet an OASIS member so cannot post to xacml list.  Will one of
> you please forward my comments?
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anil Saldhana [mailto:Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 23:36
>> To: Erik Rissanen
>> Cc: Tolbert, John W; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org; Tyson, Paul H
>> Subject: Re: FW: [xacml] Groups - Export Control - U.S. (EC-US)
>>
>>
>> The 3 letter country codes are the current standard (ISO) and 
>> the choice of implementers.
>> We should stick to 3 letter codes in the specification.
>>
>>     
>
> From the ISO3166 FAQ: "The alpha-2 code is the most widely used one of
> the three and apart from that it is the basis for other coding systems
> which attach further alphabetical or numeric characters to the alpha-2
> code elements. Examples are the currency codes from ISO 4217 or the
> UN/LOCODE."
> (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_genera
> l.htm)
>
> But popularity alone is not a good enough reason to recommend it.  For
> me, another determining factor was that ISO provides a normative version
> of the 2-letter codes on their website
> (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists.htm), but the
> normative 3-letter codes are only available in purchased products.
>
> I agree with Erik that for maximum interoperability, the profile should
> strongly recommend one coding system; I would not oppose "MUST" here.
>
> The primary use case is if US government agencies wrote policies using
> this profile.  Anything less than "MUST" would leave open the
> possibility of variant versions of the policies, which would make more
> work for everyone.
>
> --Paul 
>