Yes. Anne has stated clearly exactly what I had in mind. All the best.
Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Anderson [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:57 AM
To: Polar Humenn
Cc: 'XACML';
Subject: Re: [xacml] Generalization
It is my understanding (standard IANAL disclaimers) that IBM's patent covers
only a specific way of implementing Obligations: one in which the PDP itself
interprets and fulfills the Obligations by use of plug-in modules. This is
NOT any kind of official statement from Sun, just my personal and private
understanding. I encourage others to read the IBM patent for themselves if
in doubt.
I don't think Tim's generalization and its typical use of Obligations would
use such an implementation, since the standard model is that the PEP
interprets and fulfills the Obligations, and not the PDP.
Anne
On 15 November, Polar Humenn writes: Re: [xacml] Generalization > From:
Polar Humenn <> > To: Tim Moses <> > Cc:
'XACML' <> > Subject: Re: [xacml] Generalization
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:41:55 -0500 (EST) >
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Tim Moses wrote:
>
> > Of course, this approach would cause us to make Obligations a mandatory
part > > of the standard. But, nothing in this approach infringes on IBM's
patent. >
> Well, then, they really wouldn't be "obligations" as such, now would
they? > :) >
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgroup.p
hp.
>
--
Anne H. Anderson Email:
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgroup.p
hp.
