issue (5) - Protection for shared RQ - closure attempt

Since discussion on this has died down somewhat, let me attempt
to close this issue.  Here's how I described the proposed shared
RQ protection requirement in my last email, with a word added
to acknowledge Caitlin's comment (*innocent*):

  The proposed requirement is that the Privileged Resource Manager
  contain code sufficient so that a non-RDDP application can be
  converted to a Non-Privileged RDDP application without enabling
  a DoS attack that disconnects *innocent* clients or having to
  write inter-client receive resource protection code.

I'm going to try to close this issue by doing two things:
a) With my WG chair hat on, I'm going to say that solving
	this shared RQ resource protection problem is a
	requirement on the rddp WG's output.  This is a fairly
	fundamental system robustness issue, even within
	a single application.
b) I'm going to call WG rough consensus on the above proposed
	requirement as the WG's solution to the problem.  This is
	called over Paul Culley's objections.
Further comments (including objections) to these two items should
be posted to the list, but please be clear about whether each
comment/message is about a) or b) or both.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------