RE: Requirements Document

At 5:08 PM -0400 8/20/01, Brian Rosen wrote:
>Sure. I agree. But this is 100% an implementation
>and/or deployment issue,

absolutely right (I'm not talking about UI here.)

> and not a protocol or "object" issue.

absolutely wrong. If we don't specify what is required to comply
with a protocol (and specifying the object the protocol manipulates
is part of the protocol), you have no interoperability guarantee.

>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.

So all these things must be in the protocol.

best,

-- 
john noerenberg
jwn2@qualcomm.com
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Peace of mind isn't at all superficial, really.  It's the whole thing.
   That which produces it is good maintenance; that which disturbs it
   is poor maintenance.
   -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig, 1974
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------