On 5 June, Flinn, Don writes: RE: [xacml] Request and Response Context Schemas - Take 2
> Why do you want to remove the AttributeFamily? Our
> implementation intends to use this value to handle the
> Federation case as I explained at the F2F. Yes, one could
> pass the AttributeFamily by combining it with the
> AttributeName, but then one has to parse the AttributeName to
> get the AttributeFamily. The AttributeFamily as a separate
> element or attribute is cleaner and more understandable to
> implementers. I did not know enough about the pro's and con's of the two approaches to follow your explanation of the Federation case at the F2F. Could you send me a brief summary? Here is my view: - AttributeFamily and AttributeName are linked semantically and
syntactically and need to be associated. A URI is designed to
do exactly that kind of linkage. - Code that has already been written to handle URIs can be used
if AttributeName includes the "family/namespace/protocol"
element. What does Federation need from AttributeFamily that it can not get from a URI? Anne
--
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
