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