[cap-talk] controversial article

[Matej Kosik]

Toby Murray wrote:
> ...
>
> So defensive consistency asserts that no misbehaving client can cause a
> server to give incorrect service to a well behaved client.
> 
> Defensive correctness asserts that no misbehaving client can prevent a
> server from giving incorrect service to a well behaved client. It is
> like a liveness property because it asserts that something ("correct
> service being rendered to all well behaved clients, regardless of the
> actions of misbehaving clients") must happen.

I have somewhat updated my viewpoint.
I have rewritten sections 2 and 3 in
http://altair.fiit.stuba.sk/mediawiki/upload/2/2d/Sofsem2010.pdf
Now I draw some analogies of our two properties with which we are concerned:
- defensive consistency
- defensive correctness
with other safety or liveness properties. The new text makes more sense
to. I must yet update the rest of the paper.