Subject: Re: Guaranteeing the Integrity of Bindings

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:54:50 -0400

> > > We think that it is not impossible to guarantee integrity of bindings even
> > > in cases like this, if the server is willing to take enough trouble.  It
can
> > > store a copy of the target resource locally, and insure that no changes
are
> > > allowed except when both servers are accessible.
>
> > It may not be feasible to make a copy of a dynamic resource.

Right.  A copy might be difficult or inappropriate.  Judith's copy example is
just one possible approach.  For resources that couldn't be copied, some
cooperative proxying might be done for example.  Each approach will have
tradeoffs.  I think Judith's point was that integrity *can*
be insured.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:52:31 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> cooperative proxying might be done for example.

But the copy suggestion was for when the servers can't talk to each other.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |In the long run, there is no middle ground   |
[email-masked]|between justice and genocide.                |
\==============================================================/