RE: Issue #176 closed

>1) Some of the proposed text prefers explicitly to the 
>"DTDNotSupported" 
>fault.  I believe that resolution of issue 191 will result in such 
>references being removed.

Yes, any changes resulting from the resolution to issue 191 will need to
be applied in a consistent manner.

>2) Although I am not trying to reopen a compromise decision to 
>which we 
>have agreed, I would like to signal again my concern about the 
>rewriting 
>of role attributes and mustUnderstand attributes.  While there 
>are good 
>performance reasons for allowing such rewrites, I fear that they will 
>significantly complicate the implementation of certain sorts 
>of digital 
>signatures.

Noted, and I completely agree that this choice has a tricky cost/benefit
equation.

Henrik