W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2010

relation of “XACML Profile” to XACML 2.0 (was: CfC: Policy Profile: XACML FPWD)

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:10:45 +0200
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <1277197845.1845.680.camel@localhost>

Le mardi 15 juin 2010 à 14:42 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a écrit :
> ** the document is called a XACML profile, is said to use XACML20, but
> there is absolutely no explanation as to what this means in practice,
> what are the difference with XACML 2.0 or how it relies on it; I guess
> some text from the framework could be moved to it or re-used, but I
> think some more explanation on the relationship would be needed in any
> case

I looked a bit into this, and looking at XACML 2.0 [1], it’s pretty
clear that calling our document a “XACML profile” is more than a bit of
a stretch:
• it’s not using the XACML namespace
• it’s not using the same elements names (XACML uses capitalized
elements names, our document use lowercase hyphen-separated names)
• the schema is different in many ways (some XACML elements are
translated into attributes, many XACML elements are ommitted)
• the processing model looks quite different as well (although I haven’t
tried to investigate it in detais)
• our profile doesn’t extend XACML in any of the ways defined by the
XACML spec (in section “8. XACML extensibility points”, which I note is
not normative)

I’m sure there were good reasons for all these differences — from what I
recall, one of them included simplification; but under that light, I
don't think we can call that document a XACML Profile.

Independently of that, I still think the document should explain and
justify these differences, possibly in an informative appendix; I'm not
entirely sure what the IPR implications of adapting the XACML spec are.


Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 09:10:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:44 UTC