>"Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" - may be too heavy a statement.
Would respectfully disagree.. This is a clear and continuing issue, even after the XACML TC sponsored interop that happened at Burton Catalyst a couple of years ago.
I wrote the above two blog entries more than a year ago. AFAIK, this situation has not changed to any great degree (I am very willing, and hope that I will be, corrected on this!)
If both my PEP vendor(s) (XML Security GW Vendors as well as Software based PEPs) as well as my PDP Vendors (Entitlement/Policy Decisioning engines) trumpet their support for XACML and their ability to exist in a standards based environment, why should I continue to pay for integration between a PEP and a PDP, especially if I’ve made a decision to externalize my AuthZ (The decision to do so and implement is, as noted, a continuing policy and education problem) ?
Regards,
- Anil
PDP and PEP acronyms will need expansion. Real life examples in brackets would help. If the survey is for a business person, he would not understand PDP/PEP
"Ability to mix and match PDPs and PEPs from different vendors __" - may be too heavy a statement.
IMHO if PEP and PDP must exist (it does not matter from which vendor they are as the IT has to pay the cost), then the real problem is application integration and migration.
/Shivaram
--
Strong Authentication, SOA, Web Services, PKI, Software Architecture, Product Strategy and Management Consultants:
http://www.truststix.com/