MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
xacml message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL
From: Anthony Nadalin <>
To: XACML TC <>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:04:44 -0500
Anne,
I would also have to object and say that is out of scope for the XACML TC
and is expanding the charter which is not allowed. The document clearly
talks about Policy in a general term.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "then perhaps we should start a new
OASIS TC for it"
As far as Polar's comment, time will tell as it did for Corba.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Polar Humenn |
| | <> |
| | |
| | 09/17/2003 08:54 |
| | AM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Anne Anderson <> |
| cc: Hal Lockhart <>, bill parducci <>, XACML TC <> |
| Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
My comments,
I don't think the WSPL document is out of the scope of XACML.
It is merely a strict profile of use of XACML for a particular
application. SAML does this all the time, creating profiles, so
that it will work with a particular technology, like web browsers.
I've read the document, and although I don't condone web services as a
viable efficient mechanism for backoffice communications, I don't see
anything wrong with it.
My $2 cents.
Cheers,
-Polar
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Anne Anderson wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> These were all private communications, based on a private straw
> poll by myself of TC members. While WSPL appears to have strong
> support from a majority of TC members, it appears we do not have
> the necessary 2/3 majority at this time. Only one objector was
> specific, saying WSPL is outside the scope of XACML and is
> inconsistent with WS-Policy. One early public comment was
> received on the list, also claiming WSPL was outside the scope of
> XACML.
>
> I am very much in favor of public discussion. I again request
> that objectors post their objections publicly to
> so that the editor and contributors
> can attempt to resolve them.
>
> If the only objection is that WSPL is outside the scope of XACML,
> yet members believe it meets the published requirements for a web
> services policy language, then perhaps we should start a new
> OASIS TC for it.
>
> Anne
>
> On 16 September, Hal Lockhart writes: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on
WSPL
> > From: "Hal Lockhart" <>
> > To: "bill parducci" <>,
> > "XACML TC" <>
> > Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL
> > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:34:31 -0400
> >
> > I haven't seen anything on the list. I take it these have been private
> > communications. Can this discussion be shared on the list? The new
OASIS TC
> > process emphasizes the importance of conducting TC discussions on the
list.
> >
> > Hal
> >
> > >
