Re: [Auth]Freport Update

[John]

Hans Zandbelt wrote:
> 
> > gain endorsement? Or as I phrased it originally, "do we go with code
> > that's out there (ID-Sec, which provably misses on one requirement or
> > another) or do we stick by our philosophical guns (and insist that
> > projects meet the requirements)?"
> 
> ???
> 
> Which one would be missing now considering the local Profile Manager?
> I think we just concluded that it must be possible to create a local
> Profile Manager client library; after all you use a similar concept
> for Freport. I really don't see the difference here.

The difference between the implementation is that FrePort's messaging
topology eliminates transactional metadata even when used in a purely
remote mode.

John Le'Brecage