RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

Chris:

In your latest note in this thread you proposed 

 

Proposed text added to section 4.5: 

      If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A 
        does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity does not apply the behavior implied by 
        assertion type A.

 

I have two concerns about this proposal:

 

1.	It does not say anything about the policy of the responder.  Is the behavior different in the other direction?  I think not.
2.	The policy intersection algorithm is direction independent.  This proposal introduces direction dependency and I'm wary of that.  If we go that way then I would like to bring up the complex of ideas that say that the initiator expresses constraints - what you must do, and the responder expresses capabilities - what I can do and intersection works differently if viewed from the two directions.  If we go that route then this leads naturally into the wildcard matching that DaveO and I have been proposing.

 

All the best, Ashok