Subject: RE: [seamoby] Some proposed changes to the requirements draft.

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:41:25 -0500

Gary,

If CT failures, whether due to stale context or something else, creates
security problems, then
these need to be addressed. But, we should wait until we understand the
requirements for security
context transfer, before we state requirements for solutions to speculated
problems.
 
            Are these types of problems outside the scope of the current CT
requirements draft?
 
-Sharif.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:31:57 -0800

Sharif,

I don't think that we can expect to do protocol design through the
requirements phase. I am interested in protocol requirements, but
I don't think that we should start listing the various errors that protocols
need to deal with in the requirements document.

PatC