Re: Marlena's votes on 6-9

[Evan Prodromou <evan@outlook.net>]

>>>>> "ME" == Marlena Erdos <marlena@us.ibm.com> writes:

    ME>   Comment: I don't understand those folks who voted for
    ME> "Atomic Assertions" but who also voted to include delete/edit
    ME> by intermediaries as a use-case.  (I look forward to
    ME> clarification.)

You know, I never followed up on this. The resolution for 8-05 said:

        "Add this non-goal to the document, and change use case
	scenarios to specify that intermediaries must treat assertions
	as atomic."

This seemed to me to clearly suggest that we'd have to re-write the
delete and edit use case scenarios to make assertions atomic. The most
obvious way to do that is have intermediaries issue their own
assertions.

~ESP