MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
xacml message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL
From: Polar Humenn <>
To: Anthony Nadalin <>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Anne,
>
> I would also have to object and say that is out of scope for the XACML TC
> and is expanding the charter which is not allowed. The document clearly
> talks about Policy in a general term.
>
> I'm also not sure what you mean by "then perhaps we should start a new
> OASIS TC for it"
>
> As far as Polar's comment, time will tell as it did for Corba.
Just interested? What does this comment mean?
-Polar
>
> Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> | | Polar Humenn |
> | | <> |
> | | |
> | | 09/17/2003 08:54 |
> | | AM |
> |---------+---------------------------->
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | |
> | To: Anne Anderson <> |
> | cc: Hal Lockhart <>, bill parducci <>, XACML TC <> |
> | Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL |
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
> My comments,
>
> I don't think the WSPL document is out of the scope of XACML.
> It is merely a strict profile of use of XACML for a particular
> application. SAML does this all the time, creating profiles, so
> that it will work with a particular technology, like web browsers.
>
> I've read the document, and although I don't condone web services as a
> viable efficient mechanism for backoffice communications, I don't see
> anything wrong with it.
>
> My $2 cents.
>
> Cheers,
> -Polar
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Anne Anderson wrote:
>
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > These were all private communications, based on a private straw
> > poll by myself of TC members. While WSPL appears to have strong
> > support from a majority of TC members, it appears we do not have
> > the necessary 2/3 majority at this time. Only one objector was
> > specific, saying WSPL is outside the scope of XACML and is
> > inconsistent with WS-Policy. One early public comment was
> > received on the list, also claiming WSPL was outside the scope of
> > XACML.
> >
> > I am very much in favor of public discussion. I again request
> > that objectors post their objections publicly to
> > so that the editor and contributors
> > can attempt to resolve them.
> >
> > If the only objection is that WSPL is outside the scope of XACML,
> > yet members believe it meets the published requirements for a web
> > services policy language, then perhaps we should start a new
> > OASIS TC for it.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 16 September, Hal Lockhart writes: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on
> WSPL
> > > From: "Hal Lockhart" <>
> > > To: "bill parducci" <>,
> > > "XACML TC" <>
> > > Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: postpone vote on WSPL
> > > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:34:31 -0400
> > >
> > > I haven't seen anything on the list. I take it these have been private
> > > communications. Can this discussion be shared on the list? The new
> OASIS TC
> > > process emphasizes the importance of conducting TC discussions on the
> list.
> > >
> > > Hal
> > >
> > > >
