xacml — archive

[Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>]

 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

















xacml message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: Re: [xacml] proposal for action-id, subject-id, and required Attributes




From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>
To: XACML TC <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:43:56 -0400 (EDT)






On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Anne Anderson wrote:

> On 3 September, Polar Humenn writes: Re: [xacml] proposal for action-id, subject-id, and required Attributes
>  > Anne, again, just requiring the Subject to have "one other" attribute,
>  > which is "typically" the "subject-id", doesn't really buy you much.
>  >
>  > I suggest that we should take a stance of being consistent across all
>  > subjects, actions, and resources. For each, either that no attributes are
>  > guarranteed to be there, or they all have at least one attribute available
>  > and we know explicitly what that attribute is.
>
> I vote for "no attributes are guaranteed to be there".  I do not
> care whether we make minOccurs=0 or 1, although I think we can
> eliminate some meaningless cases by requiring at least 1, even if
> we do not specify which one that is.


All I am saying that requiring 1 attribute without knowing what that
attribute is, doesn't make the situation any more "meaningful".

However, I don't see the sense in not being able to write a policy about a
subject, resource, and action, that is guarranteed to work on all PEP-PDP
XACML interfaces.

-Polar







Follow-Ups:

Re: [xacml] proposal for action-id, subject-id, and required Attributes
From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>



References:

Re: [xacml] proposal for action-id, subject-id, and required Attributes
From: Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]


  









Powered by eList eXpress LLC