Inconsistency in obligation enforcement

[Erik Rissanen <erik@axiomatics.com>]

All,

While cleaning up the use of obligation/advice/expression in the core 
spec, I noticed that there is an inconsistency regarding enforcement of 
obligations. Section 5.1, line 1703 says:

"If the PEP does not understand, or cannot fulfill, any of the 
obligations, then it MUST act as if the PDP had returned a “Deny” 
authorization decision value. See Section 7.16."

This contradicts section 7.2 which defines PEP bias. Since I think there 
was agreement in the past that we want to let the PEP bias determine 
what happens in case of failed obligations, I am editing in the 
following change:

"If the PEP does not understand, or cannot fulfill, any of the 
obligations, then it MUST act according to the PEP bias. See Section 7.2 
and 7.16."

Please let me know if you are not in agreement.

Best regards,
Erik