RE: D-AR006.1 discussion points

> From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:41 PM
> To: Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AR006.1 discussion points
> 
> 
> Can this requirement be reworded as a 'access management' 
> component - thus circumventing those types of arguments?

Nice thought; however, regardless of the plausibility of the
re-wording, the overriding issue with D-AR006.1 remains to
be whether the spirit of the statement is in-scope.  	So far
the core of the detractors' arguments has been that the *spirit
of the statement* is out of scope.  Re-wording for the sake
of re-presentation -- same old wine, new bottle -- in this
case may IMO arouse suspicion that someone is trying to sneak
the req in, which will in the long run be counter-productive.

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
===========================================
> 
> Mike
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net]
> >Sent: May 07, 2002 03:03 PM
> >To: wsawg public
> >Subject: RE: D-AR006.1 discussion points
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:19 AM
> >> To: wsawg public
> >> Subject: Re: D-AR006.1 discussion points
> >> 
> >> 
> >> NOK: How the WS reference architecture can mitigate DOS is unclear.
> >
> >There have been some successes in this area with certain proprietary
> >technologies.  A discourse into the technologies here will no doubt 
> >invite outcries like "too much detail," "too specific," or
> >"too mechanismed, ..."  though.
> >
> >Joe Hui
> >Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 17:53:00 UTC