xacml — archive

Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.

From: Bill Parducci <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:50:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

xacml message

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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.

From: Bill Parducci <[email protected]>
To: XACML <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:06:28 -0700

Polar Humenn wrote:
> I guess, I can get around saying my PEP understands "strings", and
> therefore, all obligations, as they are just "strings" and "discharges"
> all of them to the bit bucket.

you can, but it would be a non XACML compliant PEP. i would suggest that if you 
are wholly against the use of obligations that you have your PEP generate an 
ERROR if given such (and avoid being used in an environment where that may occur ;o)

based on your concerns i am going to take a shot at the wording for collective 
consideration.

b

Follow-Ups:

Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.
From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>

References:

Obligations rear their ugly head.
From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>
Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.
From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>
Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.
From: Bill Parducci <[email protected]>
Re: [xacml] Obligations rear their ugly head.
From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>

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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]