[xacml] TC Meeting 28 April 2011 - UPDATED

[Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

I. Roll Call & Approve Minutes
 Voting Members
  Hal Lockhart (Chair)
  Bill Parducci (Co-Chair, minutes)
  Paul Tyson
  Doron Grinstein
  Remon Sinnema
  Gregory Neven
  Franz-Stefan Preiss
  Jan Herrmann
  John Tolbert

 Members
  David Chadwick
  David Choy
  John Mike Davis

 Quorum met: (57% per Kavi)

 Approve Minutes:
   21 April 2011 TC Meeting:
   APPROVED unanimously

II. Administrivia
 F2F Information
  Will be held in Lexington, MA at the Boeing facility
  28th, 29th,30th June
  John Tolbert to publish logistics information

  Webinar
   Erik, Doron and Hal will be presenting. Contents being worked on now.

 III. Issues
|Attribute predicate profile for SAML and XACML
| Greg, is in the process of splitting document into a SAML Profile
   and XACML profile. He is a bit unclear as to what is needed in XACML
   profile based upon Paul's comments on the list. Hal offered that a
   Profile may created or an artifact on non-normative document track.
   Greg noted that he is awaiting feedback from the SAML group on the
   proposal made to that group.

|BTG
  David summarized the current discussion into 4 basic topics:
  1. Use existing components in a standard way (general approval)
  2. Should be a BTG state attribute (general approval)

  3. BTG response from PDP? User knows if has BTG privilege. (open)
  4. Should there be an Obligation or special BTG response management?
     (open)

  Mike suggested that state need to broadened to be more generic than
  BTG. Hal offered that a generalize dynamic state manager that could
  be used for notification, etc.

  The current mechanisms outlined are Obligation/Advice and Missing
  Information.

  Mike suggested that the case of the request spanning organizations
  is fundamentally different than than an internal solution. He
  suggested that BTG capabilities be indicated upon initial interface
  with the PEP. Bill suggested that BTG doesn't have context until a
  Deny has been issued.

  Hal contrasted the flow diagrams posted to the list by Paul and
  David--PDP and PEP manages the BTG state. Paul intended that the PDP
  return a Deny with Advice.

  Doron offered that an Advice on a Deny would allow for a simple
  Profile that would be reasonably interoperable. David noted that an
  Obligation was used in the proposal for XACML v2 compliance.

 meeting adjourned.