xacml — archive

Re: [xacml] XACML Issues List Version 01

From: Anne Anderson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:03:00 -0000

I also like "actions" better than "post-conditions". On 10 January, Pierangela Samarati writes: Re: [xacml] XACML Issues List Version 01 > From: Pierangela Samarati <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [xacml] XACML Issues List Version 01 > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:58 +0100 (CET) > > 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> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > -- 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