To clarify myself: yes, in most cases it is the PDP that will "provide"
this attributes. But as we where discussing for quite a while now - I
do not think it is feasible to put exact requirement on exactly how it
is done.
The fact that it is a single block on Figure 1 does not mean it must be
implemented as a monolithic piece in any sense.
Could you suggest an example of a clarification? Maybe it would be
easier for me to understand why it is a problem then.
Thank you.
Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Engovatov
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:06 PM
To: Seth Proctor
Cc: bill parducci;
Subject: RE: RE: [xacml] another small time/date issue
If I understand the block diagram in the specification correctly it is
PIP that is responsible for all and any of the attributes. The source
of this
Information, except for the request context is not specified and left to
the implementation..
-----Original Message-----
From: Seth Proctor [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:30 PM
To: Daniel Engovatov
Cc: bill parducci;
Subject: Re: RE: [xacml] another small time/date issue
> ..but PDP is not intended to be a source (for
"adding/enhancing") of
> information, is it?
It already is. The PDP must supply current time/date
values if they're not included in a request. Unlike
other attributes, these values must always be
available, so in practice most people will use a PDP
that knows how to provide this data directly. This
is why I wanted to see some clarifiaction.
seth
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgro
up.php
