RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

["Gary Kenward" <[e-mail]>]

I understand your intentions James, but as a requirement,
preserving "intended usability" does not make any sense to
me. How does on test that a solution is in conformance to 
this requirement? 

Just to be clear, I don't believe that "preserving meaning"
is a real requirement either. It is also not testable.

I am not just arguing semantics here, if we are going to 
revise these requirements, let's make sure that they are
real requirements.

Perhaps the actual answer is to state exactly what was intended
originally: that the bit order and bit values have to arrive exactly
as they were transmitted.

gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: July 10, 2002 18:12
> To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> 
> 
> It's not the same definition
> 
> I suggest:
> 
> 5.5.2 A context update MUST preserve the integrity, and thus the
>       intended useability, of the context at each receiving AR.
> 
>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gary Kenward" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'James Kempf'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:31 AM
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> 
> 
> > A word is often defined as 4 bytes, or 32 bits :-) in many
> > computational architectures and programming languages.
> > 
> > Neither here nor there, really. I'll wait for further
> > suggestions/comments on the working of 5.5.2 from the wg.
> > 
> > Gary
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Kempf [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: July 10, 2002 14:12
> > > To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Word" or "phrase", from the definition you cite, typically 
> > > applies to natural language. I have not heard anyone use that
> > > terminology for machine readable information, even in 
> > > programming languages.
> > > 
> > >             jak
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gary Kenward" <[e-mail]>
> > > To: "'James Kempf'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:58 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > *snip*
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>