My thinking is that this information must be defined at the "root"
level of the PDP, which to me suggests that it be defined in the
Context Schema. I don't think that it can be "self-referential" (i.e.
a Policy construct) since that will invariably lead to ambiguity.
Is the consensus that the PDP "meta" schema been scrapped in v3?
thanks
b
On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Hal Lockhart wrote:
> I was looking at the Obligation family draft this weekend and I
> noticed that for Exclusive mode, Obligations are supposed to have a
> priority associated with them. However, I cannot find priority
> anywhere. Is this supposed to be in the core schema? Or is there
> some reserved attribute which will contain the obligation priority?
> If it needs to go in the core schema we should do it now.
>
> Hal
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Erik Rissanen [mailto:]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:26 AM
>> To: XACML TC
>> Subject: [xacml] New core and multiple resource profile
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I have posted new drafts of the core and the multiple resource
>> profile.
>> See the change logs and tracked changes for details.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, we don't have any open issues on the following
>> specs:
>>
>> - Core
>> - Multiple resource
>> - Administration
>> - Privacy
>> - SAML
>> - Dsig
>>
>> The hierarchical profile is being discussed currently and there was
>> discussion about improving the RBAC profile.
>>
>> The proposed work on the RBAC profile seems in very early stages
>> and the
>> issue (policies about management of roles) is a major topic, so I
>> propose that we don't bring this in 3.0.
>>
>> So, could we agree on a feature freeze on the above mentioned
>> profiles?
>> If so, all of the expect hierarchical are ready for review before
>> going
>> to committee draft.
>>
>> I also propose that if we don't get resolutions on the issues in the
>> hierarchical profile soon and it would appear that there are major
>> changes required, then we use the old version of that profile.
>> However,
>> my understanding is that Rich has pretty much completed the work on
>> that. I haven't had the time to review it myself yet, but I will do
>> so now.
>>
>> So, given the above, can we agree on the following?
>>
>> - everybody reviews the above mentioned profiles
>> - We correct any mistakes
>> - I will fix the metadata, references, namespaces, etc,
>> - Go CD with the above
>>
>> One final issue: we need to update the acknowledgements section of
>> the
>> core. What goes in there? My name is not in there, and I would like
>> to
>> include it. :-) I presume that we keep all the old names, right? John
>> Tolbert has requested to be added. Anybody else?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
>> my_workgroups.php
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
