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

[Jed Donnelley]

At 08:46 PM 5/16/2007, Charles Landau wrote:
>At 3:45 PM -0700 5/16/07, Jed Donnelley wrote:
> >Charles Landau wrote:
> >
> >>the premise of the example is that A  is
> >>"unaware of Horton".
> >>
> >Why is that the premise?
>
>Because the paper says so, page 2, column 2, lines 12-13.

Where it says:

The round objects in the figures, A, B, and C,
are application-level objects unaware of Horton.

As with the other change, I believe this would better say:

The round objects in the figures, A, B, and C,
are application-level objects that need not
be aware of Horton.

> >For me
> >saying that A is unaware of Horton detracts rather than adding anything.
>
>Saying that the protocol works whether or not A is aware, is stronger
>than saying it works if A is aware.

I agree that is what we should say.

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed-signature.html