Re: Comments on WSA Requirements

On Sunday 15 September 2002 11:33 am, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > Encourage X: while out of scope of any technical specification,
> > recommend X?
> > Enable X: X can be implemented by using the facilities of the
> > archtiecture
> > (does this mean X can be implemented using the facilities of the
> > architecture and nothing more?)
> > Provie X: a concrete deliverable?
> > Support X: Unlinke enable, X can be implemented by using the facilities
> > of the architecture amongst other piences?
> > (A term I sometimes also use is, "not preclude".)
>
> I believe that your definitions are in line with ours. We have tried to
> be consistent in use of these terms. I have changed the use of the term
> 'promote' to 'enable' as I believe that this was the intended meaning.

I think providing a short definition of these terms would be very useful if 
this their intended meaning.

> > This is relevant to your later non-repudiation requirement.
> > "Non-repudation"
> > is typically determined by a combination of algorithm (cryptography)
> > properties and policy/legal definitions. Do you plan to require
> > particular
> > algorithms necessary for non-repudation? Or define what it means in
> > your context?

Was the issue of non-repudiation addressed? (I might be confused and missed 
that this part was rewritten too?)