xacml — archive

RE: [xacml] Request and Response Context Schemas - Take 2

From: Anne Anderson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 16:51:00 -0000

On 5 June, Flinn, Don writes: RE: [xacml] Request and Response Context Schemas - Take 2 > Why do you want to remove the AttributeFamily? Our > implementation intends to use this value to handle the > Federation case as I explained at the F2F. Yes, one could > pass the AttributeFamily by combining it with the > AttributeName, but then one has to parse the AttributeName to > get the AttributeFamily. The AttributeFamily as a separate > element or attribute is cleaner and more understandable to > implementers. I did not know enough about the pro's and con's of the two approaches to follow your explanation of the Federation case at the F2F. Could you send me a brief summary? Here is my view: - AttributeFamily and AttributeName are linked semantically and syntactically and need to be associated. A URI is designed to do exactly that kind of linkage. - Code that has already been written to handle URIs can be used if AttributeName includes the "family/namespace/protocol" element. What does Federation need from AttributeFamily that it can not get from a URI? Anne -- Anne H. Anderson Email: [email protected] Sun Microsystems Laboratories 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928 Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692