Marlena's votes on 6-9

[Marlena Erdos <marlena@us.ibm.com>]

UC-6-01:XMLProtocol]

Abstain.

[UC-7-01:Enveloping]

   1. Add proposed requirement [CR-7-01:Enveloping].

[UC-7-02:Enveloped]

   1. Add proposed requirement [CR-7-02:Enveloped].

  Comment: Initially, I thought both enveloped/enveloping to
be "no-brainers", but then the dialog on the topic
sowed doubt within me.
  I still have doubt but also I still think these both should
be put in.  I expect that if they are kept in, we will
have more debate on them.

[UC-8-01:Intermediaries]

   1. Add proposed requirement [CR-8-01:Intermediaries].

[UC-8-02:IntermediaryAdd]

   1. Add the given use-case scenario to the document.

   Comment: I think "add" is fine in the sense of
"adding on" but not in the sense of "adding in".


[UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete]

      2. Don't add this use-case scenario.

[UC-8-04:IntermediaryEdit]

      2. Don't add this use-case scenario.

  Comment: "Deleting" and "editing" have the feel of
"tampering" to me.
  If the intermediary is truly a trusted entity then
it can rewrite the assertions and be believed.  And rewriting
is what it should do.


[UC-8-05:AtomicAssertion]

   1. Add the non-goal [CR-8-05:AtomicAssertion] to the document, and
      change use case scenarios to specify that intermediaries must
      treat assertions as atomic.

  Comment: I don't understand those folks who voted for "Atomic
Assertions" but who also voted to include delete/edit by intermediaries
as a use-case.   (I look forward to clarification.)


[UC-9-01:RuntimePrivacy]

   1. Add the proposed non-goal [CR-9-01:RuntimePrivacy].

[UC-9-02:PrivacyStatement]

    4. Add none of these as requirements.