> i understand what you are saying about trying to attack things
> in addressible bites, but there are some things that still need
> to be decided ahead of time or interoperability will be precluded
> by a lack of design. for instance, i disagree about a straightforward
> ACL compiler being very useful in the larger picture if it's only
> written to just spit out a set instructions made for a particular
> vendor platform. you've got to include at least two other higher
I thought I made it rather clear that any such approach is only
useful if you address it where the platonic ideal of ACL is seperated
from any given vendors implementation of it.
> concepts- workgroups or departments or sites plus levels of
> accessibility- in order to produce something that's maintainable.
See the quote I opened this up with. As you increase the scope of
what you attack, you leave yourself more room to fall into the turing
trap.
Workgroups, departments, sites are all words that are very open to
interpretation. We can't even come to concrete agreement on a simple
predicate for all we do, like "configure".
References:
|
|
