Prasad Yendluri wrote: > > One more thing. The spec clearly states that “an assertion with > optional=true” is syntactic simplification to having two policy > alternatives, one with and one without the assertion. > Disregarding the semantics for a moment, I've never been entirely clear what the benefit is of "normalizing" an optional assertion into two policy alternatives? As far as I can see, the same goal could be achieved by these rules: - The intersection of an assertion with optional=true with the same assertion with optional=false yields the assertion with optional=false. - The merge of an assertion with optional=true with the same assertion with optional=false yields the assertion with optional=true. Fabian -- Fabian Ritzmann Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stella Business Park Phone +358-9-525 562 96 Lars Sonckin kaari 12 Fax +358-9-525 562 52 02600 Espoo Email Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM FinlandReceived on Friday, 29 September 2006 09:16:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:15 UTC