Title: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04
Colleagues - Picking up on Polar's suggestion, why don't we argue about the actual text that appears in Section 7.1 of v12? Why not propose new text and explain why it is an improvement on what we have? All the best. Tim.
-----------------------------------------
Tim Moses
Tel: 613.270.3183
-----Original Message-----
From: bill parducci [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM
To: xacml
Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04
exactly. this is why i suggest that we select something that is not
associated with any given vendor. my gut feeling is that the combiners
will be relatively simple and that c syntax should be sufficient.
b
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote:
> The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we should not
> require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe the
> proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are familiar
> with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write pseudocode,
> but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be
> consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
