Possible compromise on profile language

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

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