W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-wsa-comments@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Comments on WSA Requirements

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 13:48:51 -0400
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-wsa-comments@w3.org, w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
Message-Id: <200209161348.51461.reagle@w3.org>

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?)
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 13:48:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:25 EDT