I also like "actions" better than "post-conditions".
On 10 January, Pierangela Samarati writes: Re: [xacml] XACML Issues List Version 01
>
From: Pierangela Samarati <>
>
Subject: Re: [xacml] XACML Issues List Version 01
>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:58 +0100 (CET)
>
> Hi,
>
> i share this feeling (incidentally, i brough it up in the last concall,
> and also in previous once).
> i was interpreting them more as "actions" than "conditions".
>
> best
> -p
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, bill parducci wrote:
>
>
> i know that it is late to bring this up, but i find the term 'post
>
> condition' unintuitive. typically, this phrase means the *state* of
>
> something after an action, not something to be acted upon. it seems that
>
> the way we are using the term implies quite a bit about the context of
>
> what is being done. (post what? where?) i think this is being
>
> demonstrated by the discussions surronding the scope of said phrase.
> >
>
> in my mind, it would seem that something like 'adjunct policy' or
> > 'adjunct policy condition' would be more appropriate? just typing out
>
> loud...
> >
>
> b
> >
> >
> > > [PM-1-02] - The alternative view is that post-conditions must be
> >
> executed if and only if the associated rule contributes to the permit
> >
> decision.
> >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
--
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
