RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04

this discussion was precipitated by the request to raise concerns prior
to voting to close the list off as a single batch.

b

On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 08:18, Tim Moses wrote:
> Colleagues - Picking up on Polar's suggestion, why don't we argue about the
> actual text that appears in Section 7.1 of v12?  Why not propose new text
> and explain why it is an improvement on what we have?  All the best.  Tim.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> Tim Moses
> Tel: 613.270.3183
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bill parducci [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: xacml
> Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04
> 
> 
> exactly. this is why i suggest that we select something that is not
> associated with any given vendor. my gut feeling is that the combiners
> will be relatively simple and that c syntax should be sufficient.
> 
> b
> 
> On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote:
> > The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we should
> not
> > require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe the
> > proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are
> familiar
> > with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write pseudocode,
> > but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be
> > consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>