OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

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

Subject: Re: [xacml] Multiple obligations

Hi all,

The "proper" way to fix this would be to explicitly include obligation 
processing in each combining algorithm, rather than having it on the 
side in a different section, saying that obligations from any policy 
"which is evaluated" is included.

In my opinion it would be worth fixing this.

Best regards,

On 2011-06-06 14:59, rich levinson wrote:
> Hi Ray/TC,
> I agree, I don't like it either, which is why I wanted to state it 
> explicitly so
> we all know what the current behavior implies, at least based on my
> reading of the text to date.
> My statement was that is how I understand the current operation
> to be, although it is not clearly and unambiguously stated in the text.
> However, I am not sure what other option might be inferred from the
> text, although your suggestion sounds like a reasonable alternative, if
> we were to explicitly state it that way.
> In any event, once the current behavior is clarified, then whatever
> it is can be considered the default option, and for 3.0, at least, if 
> devs
> want to offer other options then they can be custom w combiner
> parameters, which is what would be explained in the implementers/
> policy designers guide - explained so designers would know what to
> look for and devs would know what to implement.
>     Thanks,
>     Rich
> On 6/6/2011 5:27 AM, remon.sinnema@emc.com wrote:
>> All,
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rich levinson [mailto:rich.levinson@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:52 AM
>>> To: xacml
>>> Subject: [xacml] Minutes for 2 June 2011 TC Meeting
>> [...]
>>>     Obligations/Advice combining ambiguities. (dependent on final
>>>      version of combining algorithms)
>>>      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/201105/msg00094.html
>>>       rich: working assumption is that in deny-overrides that if there
>>>     are multiple permit rules then all the applicable permits
>>>     add their obligations to the response if decision is permit,
>>>     as opposed to the deny decision, where only one rule's obls
>>>     are returned.
>> I'm not sure I like this. First of all, this means there is an 
>> asymmetry between the permit and deny cases, as noted on the call. 
>> Secondly, this assumption rules out the following performance 
>> improvement: For deny-overrides, once an applicable permit rule has 
>> been found, other permit rules don't need to be evaluated, since they 
>> can never change the decision.
>> Thanks,
>> Ray
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

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