Subject: With XML-ACs extensions become unnecessary

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:42:15 +0100

Hi,

Some interesting things happen when you put the application-part of
a protocol etc. in an app-specific XML schema.  E.g. like in MSFT's BizTalk.

If the AC designers (using a single ASN.1 "schema"), have not thought of
"everything" that AC apps need, the apps will have to use extensions.  The more
extensions you get the less "tasty" the cake will be. And the lower (generic) part of
the parser will not be able to do very much processing of extensions except collecting
objects.  Leaving a lot of guesswork and checks to the application-level. Isn't this
what programmers have been taught to avoid the last 20 years or so?

With application-specific AC schemas the word extension becomes virtually
redundant since every app defines their own favorite attribute mix.  Like 4 passwords
"p1", "p2", "p3" and "p4" per userID instead of just one.  Can't be done using ASN.1 without
changing the AC profile or turn to extensions.  Probably a *really* stupid example but
it shows the lack of flexibility in the current scheme. Revisions, revisions, revisions...
Or extensions, extensions, extensions...

These schemas can still be a part of a generic AC framework so
there *is* still a need for that.

Note: This is just *one* part of the suggestion.

Anders