Re: [xacml] Re: [xacml-comment] Incomplete: behavior if <Obligations>present but not supported

isn't that something we we are supposed to have ironed out as part of the specification process? if there is reasonable potential for IP violation -- although with the kind of stuff that is getting patented these days i think you can be sued for using XML in a sentence! -- shouldn't we have it resolved internally? or short of that, raise the issue to karl so that OASIS can present it to IBM directly?

b

Anne Anderson wrote:

>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