Frank,
The notes for the focus group meeting which were posted state "We briefly
discussed the 'generalization' draft. There were no objections to the
direction it is taking."
This appears to be the first time this question has been asked. Why do you
feel that it is inappropriate for a working group member that was not at
the meeting to make it clear that there are objections?
Thanks,
Mike
Frank Siebenlist <> wrote on 03/26/2005 12:45:15 PM:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I would strongly suggest that you and other TC members do not reply to
> Tony's email.
>
> For Tony to make such a bold statement without providing any explanation
> or constructive suggestions is considered childish, obnoxious and even
> unprofessional in my book, and doesn't deserve our attention.
>
> Thanks, Frank.
>
>
>
> Bill Parducci wrote:
>
> > tony, could you please elaborate? i have been working with a few other
> > members of the TC to apply this concept to outstanding use access
> > control scenarios and the results to date are promising.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > b
> >
> > Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> >
> >> Tim, I don't believe that the "generalization" draft fits within the
> >> charter of XACML.
> >>
> >> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
>
> --
> Frank Siebenlist
> The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
