RE: [xacml-comment] Comment on use-case document

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>]

Title: RE: [xacml-comment] Comment on use-case document

Hi Graham,

This was a typo:  "nonreputable" should have been "non-repudiable".  The definition is also not quite right (the signature isn't signed...).  However, I guess everyone understood the intent, which was all that was really needed from a use case document, and so it never got fixed.

Carlisle.

----------
From:   Graham Klyne[SMTP:GK@NineByNine.org]
Sent:   Monday, December 02, 2002 12:37 PM
To:     xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:        [xacml-comment] Comment on use-case document

Looking at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/repository/draft-xacml-usecase-01a.pdf

I see the following definition in the first use-case:

[[
Nonreputable signature.
A signature signed in such a fashion that the signer couldn't refute it.
See, for example, the XMLD specification for which there is a link below.
]]

This seems like an odd choice of terminology.  Non-refutable or
nonrepudiable (or non-repudiable, non-repudiatable?) seem closer to the
intent here.

Nonreputable sounds rather like disreputable.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>