At 22:00 20/08/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, jfcm wrote:
> - the system (alliance, tour, travel) is identfied by the Warsaw
> conventions and the issuer of the ticket
Exactly. What we need is an equivalent of Warsaw Convention. That is
what is missing in your definition. "Accepting/taking the
responsibility" is not sufficient. There has to be some rules about it
(to avoid duplication or lack of responsibility).
Alex please consider what I/we said.
The system is by essence what the user, the provider or a third party as
decided as a global service. This is what in the Airline analogy we call
the travel (user), the alliance (Air France with Delta, with NorthWest, etc
against BA alliance etc.)
The domain is the airline. It is made by a company accepting/taking
responsbility to buy airplanes, to hire pilots, etc. No one else will setup
any rule on the free decision of the investors, entrepreneurs, etc. Like it
or not. And no other rule than the decision of the customers will say if
they want or not to fly American Airways. I do not understand your problem.
There cannot be lack of responsibilty - unless you the OCP designer wants
it, but the TSA will not permit it. This means that you want to accept
unknown planes, without pilots.
As indicated there is a clear indentifcation hierarchy system, domain,
server/service which permits everyone to determine classes of users and
permitted access groups of domains (my first mails on this list) so one can
deal with prefered, accepted, obliged services, security, laws, commercial
policies, real life operations. etc.
I really am at pain understanding your problem. And at understanding hos
you cannot understand operators and users needs.
Or please give examples. Or am I dumb stupid ?
jfc