[Ietf-not43] Suggestions of changes to the requirements document

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:30:58 -0500, you wrote:

>Vittorio,
>
>Based on my previous comment that I'd like to separate these two items,=20
>here is what I have... let me know if this doesn't work.

I hope I understood correctly the "must not prohibit" statement in
3.1.4.1 - basically you can't mandate support for access privileges
here, because it's a matter of the provisioning side, but you have to
be certain that the retrieval protocol will not have any
characteristic that prevents the operator from implementing such
support. Perhaps the only slight change I'd do is "types of access to
each piece of data" in the second line, to make sure that we are
talking of privileges that are customizable at a granular level. Don't
know if "piece of data" is English, though :-)

Also, I'm wondering whether in 3.2.11.1 you should say "at least in
one of the following ways", rather than "in one of three ways"; you
would then allow for additional types of reasons to be specified by
the protocol. (Perhaps you would allow also for non-standard
extensions done by the operator/implementor, unless you rule them out
by adding another sentence there.)

Anyway, it seems great (obviously much better than mine). Thanks.
--=20
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------