- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
- To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, David W. Morris wrote: > I'm not sure I see the point of splitting the document if the wire > protocol document can't progress w/o the privacy portion. Furthermore, > I believe portions of the wire protocol are meaningless w/o the privacy > portion. Perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but I don't see the sections that you mean. The strict 'how do you keep state' requirement seems to split on the adminstrative level from the 'who is entitled to receive that state' at the next metalevel up. It is possible for some kinds of proposals that have not been placed on the table at this time (things like cryptographically certified lists of specific machines entitled to recieve the state) could mix the two levels, but right now they are still seem quite seperable administratively. Could you give an example of something in the current proposal that mixes the two levels? Or are you suggesting that the split will block the exploration of options such as the one I mentioned? -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 15:55:50 UTC