RE: [xacml] AA04: 5.1 PolicySetId explanation clarification

This is fine with me.
-Anne On 11 October, Tim Moses writes: RE: [xacml] AA04: 5.1 PolicySetId explanation clarification
>
From: Tim Moses <>
>
To: "''" <>,
> XACML TC > <>
>
Subject: RE: [xacml] AA04: 5.1 PolicySetId explanation clarification
>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:06:50 -0400 >
> Anne - I was definitely uncomfortable with the original wording. But, even
> your improvement leaves unnecessary room for misunderstanding. Why not
> clearly state that it is the PAP's responsibility to ensure that no two
> policies visible to a PDP have the same identifier? So, instead of > "minimize the potential", why not say "eliminate the possibility"? >
> In practice, PDPs SHALL only accept policies from PAPs that agree to conform
> to a disjoint identifier assignment scheme and PAPs MUST adhere to their
> declared scheme. Yes/No? >
> All the best. Tim. > >