Re: NAF v. SNAF - where is this being addressed?

> To take a concrete example. One might wish to have a rule that says that 
> any user who is not in "this" specific set of authorization statements 
> is not authorized and should be rejected. This could be expressed as NAF 
> negation "scoped" to statements from the authorization list, or as 
> general negation over an authorization predicate which is definitively 
> defined by the closed list of assertions or as a set non-membership 
> predicate acting over a closed set of authorized users derived from the 
> list. I'd agree these are different but they all seem to be within the 
> spirit of what was mentioned at the workshop (at least to the extent 
> that I was aware of such discussions).
> 
> [Not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but then I'm 
> confused about the purpose of this list.]

[ This list is the right place for this discussion, I think, yes. ]

     -- sandro