safety.tex

[Chen, Brad]

I'm happy with making some changes to this; sorry to
not have thought more carefully about the implications
of your earlier comments. I'm wondering if anybody 
else has thoughts on this before I attempt improvements.

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: systemtap-owner@sources.redhat.com
[mailto:systemtap-owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Frank Ch.
Eigler
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:40 AM
To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com
Subject: safety.tex

Hi -

Brad has added some text to the archpaper/safety.tex file, thank you!

I would like to change the wording of the last row of the table, the
one that currently says that "separate policy from mechanism" is a
feature provided by the static validator.  This is for the reasons
I've mentioned before about misuse of a general design philosophy as a
buzzword.

I believe terminology like the previous line "end-to-end security" is
better.  Something like "secondary policy verification" would be more
specific (keeping in mind that "initial policy verification" would be
done by the translator itself).

- FChE