Re: [xacml] RE: policy model, part 1

i have the same question. i *think* that what is meant here is what i
think of as 'nullable' ('non existent value is valid'). if my assuption
is true then sekhar's definition would be rephrased:

/*
So basically, the interpretation is that a LACK OF SUBJECT is EQUIVALENT
TO AnySubject.
*/

...which, to answer the question, results in 'no value' being the
representation of 'nil', er... 'null'

b

Polar Humenn wrote:
> Sekhar,
>
> How is "nil" represented for "nillable".
>
> -Polar