Maybe the little diagram I drew in my print copy would
be worth adding somewhere (fixed up, of course):
OR:
<Assertion>
<Conditions>
<Condition>
<AudienceRestriction><Audience>1
<AudienceRestriction><Audience>2
AND:
<Assertion>
<Conditions>
<Condition>
<AudienceRestriction><Audience>1
<Condition>
<AudienceRestriction><Audience>2
--Nick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jahan Moreh [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 02:19 PM
> To: 'Cahill, Conor P'; 'OASIS Security Services TC'
> Subject: RE: [security-services] Audience Restriction nit...
>
>
> Added to errata doc....
>
>
> Jahan
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Cahill, Conor P [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:55 PM
> To: OASIS Security Services TC
> Subject: [security-services] Audience Restriction nit...
>
>
> On lines 922-925 in the core specification for 2.0, the
> sentence:
>
> The effect of this requirement and the
> preceding definition is that within a given condition, the
> audiences forma a disjunction (an "OR") while multiple
> conditions form a conjuntion (an "AND")
>
> took me a bit of throught to figure out (no comments
> on my thought process, scott). I think we could add a note
> to the errata and perhaps make it into some future version
> that this would read better as follows
>
> The effect of this requirement and the
> preceding definition is that within a given
> <AudienceRestrictioin, the <Audience>s form a disjunction (an
> "OR") while multiple <AudienceRestrictions> form a
> conjuntion (an "AND").
>
> As I said in the subject, just a nit.
>
> Conor
>
>
