Re: [Auth]Freport Update

[Hans Zandbelt]

> > 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.

Maybe we should discuss this in more detail because as I stated before
I don't think that this can work in a useful scenario; I would like
to see how you think that it can be done.
I assume that usage in remote mode means that encryption is used so the
remote Profile Storage Provider (because thats what we're talking
about then) cannot read the data himself.
I'm I right?

Hans.