No, I mean a PDP that is programmed not to return Obligations
because it does not want to run the risk of infringing on IBM's
IP claims.
Anne
On 18 November, bill parducci writes: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but not supported
> From: bill parducci <>
> To: XACML COMMENT <>
> Subject: Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations> present but
> not supported
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:27:21 -0800
>
>
> do you mean the pEp? the pDp need not understand an Obligation since it is imposed upon the pEp as part of enforcement of the decision, not on the pDp as a consequence of making the decision.
>
> e.g.
> decision: PERMIT
> obligation: STRONGENCRYPT
>
> make sense?
>
> b
>
> Anne Anderson wrote:
>
> >The behavior of a PDP that does not support the optional
> > element when presented with a Policy containing
> > is not specified.
> >
> >Possible behavior: if a Policy or PolicySet is Applicable to a
> >Request and the Policy or PolicySet contains , but
> >the PDP does not support , that the PDP MUST return
> >"Deny".
> >
> >Anne Anderson
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
