Hi Darren,
Thanks for this - you've obviously done a lot of work.
In the text you have the following.
>
> ISSUE[UC-1-06:Anonymity] What part does anonymity play in [OSSML]
> conversations? Can assertions be for anonymous parties? Here,
> "anonymous" means that an assertion about a principal does not include
> an attribute uniquely identifying the principal (ex: user name,
> distinguished name, etc.).
>
> A requirement for anonymity would state:
>
> [R-Anonymity] [OSSML] will allow assertions to be made about
> anonymous principals.
I request that this requirement be rephrased as:
<rephrase>
[R-Anonymity] [OSSML] will allow assertions to be made about anonymous
principals, where "anonymous" means that an assertion about a
principal does not include an attribute uniquely identifying the
principal (ex: user name, distinguished name, etc.).
</rephrase>
The reason for this, is that I believe it is important to make sure
what we mean by anonymous is not lost. In my opinion, other
definitions of anonymous, make this requirement unworkable.
Thanks and regards,
Nigel.
