Re: KDC model and atomicity

>>>>> "Nico" == Nico Williams <[email protected]> writes:

    Nico> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Leif, I'm confused because I'd like to understand what in the current
    >> text leads to a requirement for atomicity.

    Nico> The failed authentication count attribute.  I suppose we could say
    Nico> that it's a virtual attribute whose value may be computed from other
    Nico> sources, then there'd be no atomicity implication.

Hmm.  I thought the difference between a schema and data model implied
this.  If there is ambiguity I'd prefer to clarify that so long as the
data is representend in the schema, how it is done is up to the
schema. I think even calling out issues like avoiding atomicity would be
reasonable. But I'd prefer for it to be global not just focused on this
one issue.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg