RE: Proposed Ballots for Issue Groups 6, 7, 8, 9

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

> Also, group 8 may be somewhat confusing. I think that the scenario in
> [UC-8-02:IntermediaryAdd] is probably useful and would probably be
> common for systems that use intermediaries. However, the ones in
> [UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete] and [UC-8-04:IntermediaryEdit] may be
> somewhat problematic and less useful. [UC-8-05:AtomicAssertions] tries
> to rationalize this problem with an explicit non-goal.

I agree that additions seem both more necessary and less dangerous than
edits and deletions. Wouldn't it be better in those cases for the
Intermediary to issue new assertions on its owh authority?

Edits and deletions will also cause problems when subject to negative
policies. (Allow to anybody who lacks attribute X.) However, for this any
many other reasons, negative policies should be avoided.

Hal