Re: [xacml] An idea regarding decision explanation

Erik Rissanen wrote:
> Good. If the rest of the TC thinks this is interesting, I can explore 
> this further. I suppose we can discuss it at the meeting this week.


For the discussion: one way to do this would be to generalize 
obligations, rather than to invent a new syntax like I did in my example.

If we allow obligations in more parts of the policy than just the 
policy/policy set level, and allow FullFillOn="NotApplicable", we can 
implement all this with obligations.

/Erik