RE: Core 0.15 draft

From
Tim Moses <>
Date
2001-08-22T20:15:55+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: Core 0.15 draft
Title: RE: Core 0.15 draft

Phill 
- OK.  I understand. about the AttributeNamespaceName.  But, should 
not the text of 2.4.1 (above the schema fragment) also refer to 
AttributeNamespaceName, not Attribute?

 

While 
we are on the subject of names and syntax definitions for things ... 
"object"!  It is described as specifying the resource and action 
(see 2.5.1).  So, should we not choose a name that reflects that (e.g. 
ResourceAction)?  I don't believe the syntax for "object" is 
currently defined.  We should remember that the PDP may have to locate and 
retrieve a policy (e.g. from "the Web" or LDAP) for the 
resource/action combination represented by "object".  So, 
allowing the syntax of "object" to be either a URL or DN would be 
useful.

 

All 
the best.  Tim.

    
-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
    [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:23 
    PM
To: 'Tim Moses'; Security-Services (E-mail)
Subject: 
    RE: Core 0.15 draft

    
I 
    have no problems with most of the changes, thanks to Tim for putting in the 
    hard work!

    
 

    
AttributeNamespaceName... is introduced as a result 
    of the con call where it was agreed to prevent queries specifying attribute 
    values. The name could well be tweaked, the original change proposal used 
    the same element name twice so I fixed it minimally.

    
 

    
Some of the parenthetical comments I would demote 
    to notes however so the main flow of the text is 
    unimpeeded.

    
 

    
        
    Phill

    
Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal 
    Scientist
VeriSign Inc.

781 245 6996 
    x227

    
        
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses 
        [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 
        2001 2:11 PM
To: Security-Services (E-mail)
Subject: 
        RE: Core 0.15 draft

        
Colleagues - On the assumption that the invitation to 
        comment is implied, here are mine; in the form of a marked-up 
        version.  Hopefully, at least the typo changes are not 
        controversial.  Best regards.  Tim.

        
-----Original Message----- 
From: 
        Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:] 
        
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:59 PM 
To: Security-Services (E-mail) 
Cc: 
        Security-Editors (E-mail) 
Subject: Core 0.15 
        draft 

        
Attached are the core 0.15 draft and acompanying 
        schemas, the pretty 
pictures will follow 
        separately. 

        
        Phill 
        

        
Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng. 
Principal Scientist 
VeriSign Inc. 
        
 
781 245 
        6996 x227