[cap-talk] VOC <-> DAC distinction (was: RE: In defense of P-1935)

[Jed Donnelley]

At 07:18 PM 2/2/2008, Karp, Alan H wrote:
>Jed wrote:

> > You can just
> > use your discretion to do any needed delegations
> > through the Horton PDP.
>...
> > Isn't this a DAC without MAC situation where
> > I don't need to know the policy to avoid
> > violating it?  Isn't it in fact Voluntary
> > Oblivious Compliance?   The above thinking is
> > why to me VOC is a subset of DAC - essentially
> > a nice property of a DAC.
>
>Not by my definition.

I'm a little confused what you are referring to above.
You say:

>If the delegator is not confined, it's VOC.

That's the case I thought I defined:

>At 05:39 PM 2/2/2008, Jed Donnelley wrote:
>>You can just
>>use your discretion to do any needed delegations
>>through the Horton PDP.

Not?  Since the delegator isn't confined (i.e. has
opportunities to delegate other than through the
Horton tunnel), then I consider the above a DAC
without MAC situation.  The delegator isn't confined,
so, as you say, isn't it VOC - at least when the
Horton tunnel is used?

>If the delegator is confined, then it's DAC with MAC.

Understood.

>If there's nobody to block the delegation or prevent use of the 
>delegated right, it's DAC without MAC.

I think I understand, though as I say, the terminology
does sometime seems a bit slippery to me.  I just wonder
if you could clarify for me whether or not you consider
optionally delegating through Horton tunnels as VOC or
not.

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