xacml — archive

RE: [xacml] Re: Section 7.2 Base policy (was A single tree?)

From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:24:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

xacml message

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

--

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

Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: Section 7.2 Base policy (was A single tree?)

From: Polar Humenn <[email protected]>
To: Tim Moses <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:36:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Tim Moses wrote:

> Polar - You are being very definite on the subject of what the specification
> is about.  Does this come from a reading of the charter?

No.  I guess I just have strong feelings. :)

But I could go back and read the charter.

> My own feeling is that our committee should develop specifications for
> implementing a practical system for authorization.

That seems like a lot of consulting somebody could pay you for.

The other word that confuses me, is "practical". Practical for what?
Healtcare? Air Traffic Control? Dick Tracy's watch?

> I don't mind if our core spec. passes on this particular topic (although
> I still think it should explicitly acknowledge that there is an issue,
> albeit one that is out of scope). Another spec. in the series (such as
> the LDAP profile) could offer solutions.

Still, but along those lines, it's an implementation, as you found out
when you embarked on that effort, that there would be 20 which ways to
Sunday on how to do something like that, and one solution to the problem,
would not fit somebody else's requirements.

> Otherwise, different vendors' PAPs and PDPs will not solve this question
> in an interoperable manner.

Why not solve that problem, only when it becomes a problem to be solved.

Cheers,
-Polar

> All the best.  Tim.
>
>