Re: [dix] Re: [Ietf-http-auth] More requirements

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan at washington.edu>]

> Indeed, many of these are distinct "security properties". Note in the intro 
> to his note, ekr termed the content of his note as:
>
>  "a taxonomy of requirements/features and technical options"

Right, a problem we often have with stating requirements is 
differentiating between "X is required to be possible/negotiable" and "X 
is required to always be done"; where the first of these produces 
derivative requirements about the nature of the negotiation of and/or 
policy around the feature.

 - RL "Bob"

_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
dix at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix