Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-20 Thread Ed Murphy
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior? Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-20 Thread Zefram
Ed Murphy wrote: >e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a >Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior? Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain well-defined ways.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Ed Murphy
Pavitra wrote: There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the securing rule. Actually, that's under the old system. Under the new system, there would be little point in a security level higher than the power of the rule defining security levels. (And so that rule shoul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Pavitra
> There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the > securing rule. Oh yes, I meant to write in a clause about that. Append the sentence "A rule CANNOT specify a security level greater than its own power." I think that should do it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Ed Murphy
Pavitra wrote: A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated. How about: A

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Pavitra
> A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a > permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an > instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule > defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated. How about: A secured at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Ed Murphy
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance

2007-08-19 Thread Zefram
Ed Murphy wrote: > A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a > permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an > instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule > defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated. This is