Julian wrote on 12/13/2005 10:01:35 PM: > Cullen Jennings wrote: > > > > I just read section 17 and, well, I'm certainly not clear how versioning > > works. > > > > Is there a need for a client to do something different based on if it is > > talking to a server that does all the MUST in 2518 and a server that does > > all the MUST in bis. If so, the description in 17.1 may be problematic. If > > I don't think so. As a matter of fact, unless somebody can come up with > as use case, defining a new compliance class seems to be completely useless. I agree with Julian, and I haven't yet seen an even partially compelling use case that motivates the introduction of a new compliance class. I suggest that unless such a compelling use case is identified very soon, this matter be resolved by not introducing a new compliance class. > > What is our take on Forced-Authenticate. Do we have a use case that requires > > us to create a new class for this? > > As far as I can tell, the consensus was to remove it. That was my understanding as well. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 03:38:20 UTC