OK, let me suggest a small addition to the end of section 4.3.
The last paragraph currently reads:
"The interesting cases are combining insteadOf with inAddtionTo. The rest of
the cases either substitute in B's policy or propagate forward A's policy."
(First note another misspelling in the above sentence. "inAddtionTo"
should be "inAdditionTo").
I suggest:
"The interesting cases are combining insteadOf(A) and inAdditionTo(A) with
inAdditionTo(B). Note that the union of insteadOf(A) and inAdditionTo(B),
listed in the table as insteadOf(A+B), is more specifically defined as
insteadOf(insteadOf(A) + inAdditionTo(B)). The rest of the cases either
substitute in B's policy or propagate forward A's policy."
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [SMTP:housley(_at_)spyrus(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 5:51 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: ESS-02 MLA Receipt Policies
Yes, Scott you have it correct. If this is not clear in the document,
please suggest wording changes to make it clear.
Russ
At 07:55 AM 2/20/98 -0800, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
First, two minor typos in the table in section 4.3:
The entry for "A's policy is missing" and "B's policy is inAdditionTo"
is misspelled. "inAddtionTo(B)" should be "inAdditionTo(B)".
The entry for "B's policy is missing" and "A's policy is inAdditionTo"
is misspelled. "inAditionTo" should be "inAdditionTo".
Now I need to understand something about the intended union of the
policies. Consider this case:
A's policy is insteadOf, and B's policy is inAdditionTo. The table
says the union is insteadOf(A+B). Does this mean the effective policy
is the union of A's insteadOf names and B's inAdditionTo names to yield
insteadOf(insteadOf(A) + inAdditionTo(B))? I know there aren't any other
names available, but the table entry makes it look like there should be
insteadOf names for B.
----->
Scott Hollenbeck (mailto:hollenbe(_at_)east(_dot_)xsis(_dot_)xerox(_dot_)com)
Xerox Special Information Systems
Arlington, Virginia, USA