Re: [xacml] Abbreviated names for the XACML categories in the JSON profile

[Allan Foster <allan.foster@forgerock.com>]

+!

Consistency with the core spec is good.  I also think that although access-subject is by far the most common at the moment,  the other might become more prevalent as more people use the spec.

Allan

Simplify Email: Email Charter

	Allan Foster - ForgeRock Vice President Technology & Standards Office of the CTO Location: Vancouver, WA, US p: +1.360.229.7102
email: allan.foster@forgerock.com www: www.forgerock.com www: www.forgerock.org blogs: blogs.forgerock.com/GuruAllan

On 4/14/14, 11:23 PM, Sinnema, Remon wrote:

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xacml@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Steven Legg
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:30 AM
To: David Brossard
Cc: xacml; GRIFFIN, GLENN (GLENN)
Subject: Re: [xacml] Abbreviated names for the XACML categories in the JSON profile


Hi David,

On 15/04/2014 12:03 AM, David Brossard wrote:

Hi,

In his latest series of comments on the JSON profile on the xacml-dev list, Glenn rightly pointed out that I was being

inconsistent in the way I define shorthand names for the XACML categories.

All the categories are shortened the same way (i.e. keep whatever comes after the last colon) except for

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:access-subject which is currently shortened as subject. I did that because
most individuals I talk do not understand access-subject but do understand subject. It's also because access-subject is the
only subject category widely used, the others not being so common.

Glenn was suggesting I shorten urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:access-subject to access-subject for

consistency's sake. I then replied I' turn to the TC for a final decision. There are three options:

(a) go for access-subject. This way the shorthand is consistent for
all categories
(b) go for subject. It is more understandable
(c) allow for both.

What is your preferred option? I would like to decide on this before our next call so that I can upload WD17 before the

meeting to move it ahead.

I would vote for consistency with the core specification, i.e., (a).

Regards,
Steven

Reference: the table in question

*Identifier*



*Short name*

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:attribute-category:resource



resource

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:attribute-category:action



action

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:attribute-category:environment



environment

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:access-subject



*/subject/*

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:recipient-subject



recipient-subject

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:intermediary-subject



intermediary-subject

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:codebase



codebase

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:1.0:subject-category:requesting-machine



requesting-machine


Cheers,
David.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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