> Sure. I agree. But this is 100% an implementation
> and/or deployment issue, and not a protocol or "object" issue.
> We can offer advice on the subject, but I can't see how
> you would write anything stronger.
>
> I really DO want to use policy systems in some cases.
> I really DO want to have delegation mechanisms in some cases.
> I really DO want to have cryptographically secure authentication
> in many (most) cases.
>
> What I don't want is to have this group specify any of them.
>
> Use words like "recommend" and "should consider", and not
> "must" and "mandatory-to-implement". The field of use
> for this object is way to wide to do more.
this group is to develop requirements, not wishes. and there
is an expectation that these requirements may indeed be met by a
protocol developed by a follow-on wg.
randy
Received on Mon Aug 20 17:12:26 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:22 EST