xacml — archive

[Bill Parducci]

I. Roll Call Hal Lockhart (Chair) Bill Parducci (Co-Chair, minutes) Erik Rissanen Paul Tyson Gareth Richards Jan Herrmann Rich Levinson Dilli Arumugam Seth Proctor John Tolbert David Staggs Voting Members: 11 of 13 (84% per kavi) Non-Voting Sridhar Muppidi II. Administrivia Vote to approve Minutes from 7 January 2010 TC Meeting APPROVED unanimously III. Issues There is general agreement that sufficient time/communication has been put forth to consider the Acknowledgements list complete. The TC reviewed the current state of the issues addressed here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/201001/msg00037.html Erik led the discussion through each of the issues with Jan on the call. Issues that were addressable in the scope of the current work product were resolved to the general satisfaction of the TC. Those that were deemed outside of this scope will be added to the Issues list for consideration in subsequent work. Rich requested that we postpone voting to promote to Committee Draft next week to allow time for final review and administrative preparation. The TC concurred with this. The vote will be held at next week's TC meeting. Gareth raised a question regarding conformance. Hal offered the opinion that the Conformance section (Ch 10) of the Core Spec seems to minimally meet the requirements of the current TC process, even though the text is a hold over from 2.0 which predates those requirements. Erik will request an opinion from Mary as to whether the conformance sections of all the documents are satisfactory. Currently there is just one conformance clause in Core which says you have to do all the mandatory things. It might be sensible to have other alternatives, but the TC discussed this recently and decided not to add to it. The issue of a PDP advertising what its capabilities is deemed a separate issue from conformance. It is proposed that when the TC write the Metadata spec we provide a more fine grained way to advertise what features are available in a given deployment. A question was raised as to whether an implementation supporting the wire protocol, but not using an XACML compliant PDP, could claim conformance to something in the spec. Hal took a quick look at the SAML Profile and offered the opinion that it was at least possible to argue that this was allowed. meeting adjourned.