MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
xacml message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] XACML TC position on SAML Attribute meta-data
From: Anne Anderson <>
To: Daniel Engovatov <>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:50:53 -0400
Daniel,
I suggest we separate the issue of support for concatenating name
components in general from the issue of support for a specific
"scope/namespace/source" name component.
So long as a deterministic concatenation order is specified, it
should be possible to omit any name component from a
concatenation if desired.
Anne
On 7 April, Daniel Engovatov writes: RE: [xacml] XACML TC position on SAML Attribute meta-data
> From: Daniel Engovatov <>
> To: , XACML TC <>
> Subject: RE: [xacml] XACML TC position on SAML Attribute meta-data
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:01:05 -0700
>
>
> In regard to N.4: I think we should seriously consider adding
> "scope"/"namespace"/"source" as a separate attribute, not part of the
> attribute name.
> That will allow for much more flexibility and interoperability in
> expressing context view of enterprise data: it typically has myriad of
> sources not easily grouped into our 4 predefined scopes (<subject>,
> <resource>, <action>, <environment>). Concatenation and other form of
> name mangling is usually a very non-robust way for name conflict
> resolution.
>
> This separated attributes may be made part of existing "scopes", or the
> concept of scope can be made extensible.
>
> So, I would not sign on item 4) I agree with others.
>
> Daniel.
>
>
>
