[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
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>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC