[cap-talk] Delegating Responsibility in Digital Systems: Horton's "Who Done It?"

[Charles Landau]

At 12:48 AM -0700 5/16/07, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>The Horton code in the paper is a purely sequential program, so any object
>that gets control can loop and delay everything else forever.
>
>...
>
>Do you think a clarification of this point is needed in the paper?

Given the five-page limit, no.

>  > skyhunter.com/marcs/SecurityPictureBook.ppt - would you please make
>>  this available in a non-proprietary format?
>
>Try <http://erights.org/talks/efun/SecurityPictureBook.pdf>

Then I would suggest using that URL in the paper.

At 12:49 AM -0700 5/16/07, Jed Donnelley wrote:
>One that I've expressed concern about is the business
>of 'thinking', e.g.:
>
>A in step (1), executes b.foo(c),
>"thinking" it is sending the message "foo" to receiver
>B with a reference to object C as an argument.
>
>I know what is meant and I've gradually become more comfortable
>with that construct, but I don't see why A can't know exactly
>what is going on (could in any case) and still chooses to
>execute b.foo(c) knowing that b is actually the identity
>tracking proxy P1 and c is the identity tracking proxy P2.

A could know that, but the premise of the example is that A  is 
"unaware of Horton".

At 1:25 AM -0700 5/16/07, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>The cfp does end with:
>
># Note, however, that we expect that many position papers accepted for HotSec
># '07 will eventually morph into finished, full papers presented at future
># conferences.
>
>Having come this far, I do plan to submit to HotSec. The text above suggests
>this will not preclude submitting an expanded paper elsewhere.

And I hope you do so.