> The <Advice> (if we call it so) is similar to an obligation, but it
> can
> be ignored by the PEP. It is intended as extra information about the
> decision, like a reason for why an access was permitted or denied. Not
> as a requirement for the PEP to perform an action.
>
> Best regards,
> Erik
>
I think this is a bad naming idea. XACML should not be in the
business of prescribing what PEP does with decision metadata, and
certainly we should not enshrine it in the schema. As I have already
mentioned, "obligation" was a bad choice of a term to start with.
Simple fact is that decision is not a boolean, and it is
implementation/profile defined what any other facet of the decision
means. We should just pick a neutral term and leave everything else
to profiles.
Daniel;
