Hi,
since no one spoke up to this issue, we conclude that there's no need
to add more detailed requirements for a rules specification language
beyond what's already in the policies requirements draft.
-Markus
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Hi,
from the minutes of our meeting in Atlanta we've the following open issue:
"Do we need more detailed requirements for a specification language?
Perhaps this falls out of the policy requirements draft, (implying
that we need to put more details into the policy requirements
drafts, rather than having a separate document)."
In general, if we need more detailed requirements, I think this should
be part of the policy requirements drafts rather than having yet another
separate document. Indeed, Section 3.2 of the "Requirements for Policy,
Authorization and Enforcement" draft already spells out a few
requirements, it seems natural to extend this section if necessary. Any
thoughts on that?
Also, please post if you've more detailed requirements for the rules
language in mind that should be written down.
Cheers,
Markus