xacml — archive

[System]

Hi, i share this feeling (incidentally, i brough it up in the last concall, and also in previous once). i was interpreting them more as "actions" than "conditions". best -p On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, bill parducci wrote: > i know that it is late to bring this up, but i find the term 'post > condition' unintuitive. typically, this phrase means the *state* of > something after an action, not something to be acted upon. it seems that > the way we are using the term implies quite a bit about the context of > what is being done. (post what? where?) i think this is being > demonstrated by the discussions surronding the scope of said phrase. > > in my mind, it would seem that something like 'adjunct policy' or > 'adjunct policy condition' would be more appropriate? just typing out > loud... > > b > > > > [PM-1-02] - The alternative view is that post-conditions must be > > executed if and only if the associated rule contributes to the permit > > decision. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >