Remon,
Thanks. See inline.
On 2011-06-07 07:08, wrote:
> I found the following issues with wd-20:
>
>
> 5.14 Element<Policy>
> "<CombinerParameters> [Optional]
> A sequence of parameters to be used by the rule-combining algorithm."
> - Are these parameters only used by the rule-combining algorithm, or also by the policy-combining algorithm?
>
As far as I can tell this is wrong. It should say policy combining, not
rule combining. But then there is no real definition of how these
elements apply. I figure the intent is that the <CombinerParameters>
element applies to the element it is contained in (<Policy> or
<PolicySet>) since it does not contain a reference.
<PolicySetCombinerParameters>, <PolicyCombinerParameters> and
<RuleCombinerParameters> all contain a reference, so they would apply to
what the reference is pointing.
> 5.14 Element<Policy>
> "<ObligationExpressions> [Optional]
> A conjunctive sequence of obligation expressions which MUST be evaluated into obligations byt the PDP."
> - "byt" should be "by". Also in 5.21.
>
>
> 5.16 Element<CombinerParameters>
> "If multiple<CombinerParameters> elements occur within the same policy or policy set, they SHALL be considered equal to one<CombinerParameters> element containing the concatenation of all the sequences of<CombinerParameters> contained in all the aforementioned<CombinerParameters> elements, such that the order of occurence of the<CominberParameters> elements is preserved in the concatenation of the<CombinerParameter> elements."
> - "Cominber" should be "Combiner". Also in 5.18, 5.19, and 5.20. Also found "<PolicyCominberParameters>" and"<PolicySetCominberParmeters>".
> - "occurence" should be "occurrence".
> - I have a feeling that some of these "<CombinerParameters>" should be"<CombinerParameter>", but I find that hard to tell with the current wording. Also in 5.18, 5.19, and 5.20.
I think the final <CombinerParameters> should be just
<CombinerParameter> so it says: "... such that the order of occurence
of the <CominberParameter> elements is preserved in the concatenation ..."
> 5.18 Element<RuleCombinerParameters>
> "Support for the<RuleCombinerParameters> element is optional, only if support for combiner parameters is not implemented."
> - This wording is unclear to me. Does this mean that support for<RuleCombinerParameters> is only optional if support for combiner parameters is not implemented???
I guess it means that if you do implement combiner parameters, you have
to do that for both policy and rule combining, not just one of them.
> 5.29 Element<AttributeDesignator>
> "If the Issuer is not present in the attribute designator, then the matching of the attribute to the named attribute SHALL be governed by AttributeId and DataType attributes alone."
> - And Category.
Yes!
> 5.30 Element<AttributeSelector>
> "The values shall be constructed from the node(s) selected by applying the XPath expression given by the element's Path attribute to the XML content indicated by the element's Category attribute."
> - "shall" should be "SHALL".
Yes
> 5.30 Element<AttributeSelector>
> "DataType [Required]
> The attribute specifies the datatype of the values returned from the evaluation of this<AttributeSelector> element."
> - "The attribute" should be "This attribute", like everywhere else.
Yes
> 5.41 Element<AttributeAssignmentExpression>
> "The value specified SHALL be understood by the PEP, but it is not further specified by XACML."
> - It only SHALL be understood for an obligation, not for an advice.
Well, yes, but advice can be ignored in their entirety, so it would not
matter. but I guess we could change that.
> 5.44 Element<Attributes>
> - In the XML schema fragment, there is a trailing "<xs:complexType name="SubjectType">" that shouldn't be there.
Will remove.
> 5.49 Element<PolicyIdentifierList>
> - We use "Id" everywhere, so why is this "Identifier" all of a sudden?
> - Also, we use the plural "s" everywhere and here we use "List".
I guess it was a different person who added this element at a later
stage so it became like that. I would prefer to keep it. It has no
impact on implementations.
> 6 XPath 2.0 definitions
> - "make user of" should be "make use of".
Will fix for next draft.
> Thanks,
> Ray
>
