 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FW: Thread is getting too big. From: Thomson,
Martin Semantic fluff? If you
like. I was trying to be precise in
definitions – such things are important in understanding the decisions that
people make with respect to policy. Being able to recognize that you are
making a policy decision is the first part in then understanding the
implications of that decision. If the LIS can determine that
the requester and target are the same – to its satisfaction, and I wont define
what that means ;) – then it can use LCP policy; otherwise the security of the
system demands that it operate on another policy. That is the crux of
Cullen’s complaint. However, if no such alternative policy exists, then
it cannot provide location. That’s what the draft says. --Martin From: Dawson,
Martin Well sure – which is to say “it’s
all semantic fluff”. The device is asking for its own
location – and providing an identity value that will help with that process. I
haven’t seen the actual mathematical proof that says that isn’t LCP but… sure…
I’ll take your word for it. There are certainly rule makers at play somewhere. Cheers, Martin |