Well, if there is even a chance that one part one be done when the other is I'd say that was pretty much the only reason you needed to split them. David Chadwick wrote:
Chad La Joie wrote:
Okay, I'll look at the document in more detail.
I believe I already mentioned to Valerio that I think there is benefit to having two separate documents, one for the protocol and one for the attributes.
Its more than just attributes. Obligations also need to be standardised. Perhaps CRUD actions as well.
This allows parts to be updated more easily and, if written
properly, would allow the attributes spec to be cited by things unrelated to XACML but still wanting to the attributes you define.
Agreed. This has been discussed by the WG. Its all a question of timing. If the attributes/obligations etc can come quickly after the protocol profiles this will be fine, but if it takes years then it would be too long.
-- SWITCH Serving Swiss Universities -------------------------- Chad La Joie, Software Engineer, Security Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland phone +41 44 268 15 75, fax +41 44 268 15 68 chad.lajoie@switch.ch, http://www.switch.ch