[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Possible compromise on profile language
Rick, After you dropped, Greg and others proposed a possible compromise approach that might preserve the goal of having a specific profile to reference that required encryption. What if the underlying profile included multiple "modes" of deployment, perhaps "basic" and "encrypted", in which the encryption is a MAY in the former but a MUST in the latter. Each could be assigned its own URI for reference purposes and implementations of the profile would have to support both. I'm basically trying to prevent the need for the grid guys we're working with to come back and try and get their own profile approved, and there's not much difference here except for the encryption and maybe the extra signing (I still don't get that part). -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]