xacml — archive

RE: [xacml] Minutes of 20 May 2004 XACML Focus Group

From: Daniel Engovatov <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:33:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















xacml message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [xacml] Minutes of 20 May 2004 XACML Focus Group




From: "Daniel Engovatov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:37:33 -0700







I actually think that "being named in only one way" should be out of our
scope.   That is a rather heavy requirement to impose on a system, one
that requires users to come up with mapping.  In the same time, it does
not buy
You much more in terms of expressiveness for the hierarchical policy.

It seems a little bit ambitious to try to define a universal naming
scheme, especially when it is not generally needed:  for
interoperability it is no harder to use some particular naming
convention for hierarchy, - one has to use "some" naming convention in
any new system anyway. 

I would think imposing some mandatory format for the identifier is, how
would they say - "unduly burdensome"  :)

Daniel.