On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> I don't think there are actually that many cases to deal with here. I'm not
> trying to design a reliable transaction protocol, just a simple mechanism
> that would support the use case of a relatively stable PAP returning multiple
> blocks of policies to a client.
Yet, the text above this section was filled with ramblings of protocol as
if it were just "common sense".
It's one thing to specify XACML because it is viewed (or at least I view
it as) as a representation of access-control policy that is transportable
between PAPs and different PDPs, leaving the "implementation details" of
that transport alone.
It's completely other thing to specify a "simple" element in a _protocol_
and not cover the bases, or assume others will have the same "common
sense" about it as you do.
It's funny that we are all in "security" which is supposed to mean things
like, _availability_, _assurance_, _reliablitity_, yet we punt on those
things all the time.
Cheers,
-Polar
