[SAGA-RG] Python Bindings

[Steve Fisher]

This text appears in most saga documents. I see it only as a definition of
what we mean by secure. It does not mean much but is harmless.

Sorry for the delay in responding last week - some things cropped up!

Steve
On 16 Dec 2012 08:30, "Ole Weidner" <ole.weidner at rutgers.edu> wrote:

> Hi Andre,
>
> I don't think I can agree with section 1.2 "Security Considerations". It
> reads:
>
> "A SAGA implementation is considered secure if and only if it fully
> supports (i.e. implements) the security models of the middleware layers it
> builds upon, and neither provides any (intentional or unintentional) means
> to by-pass these security models, nor weakens these security models’
> policies in any way."
>
> Implementing the SAGA 'security models' (i.e., saga contexts and maybe
> permissions?) doesn't make an implementation 'secure'. 'Secure' is a very
> strong (and overloaded!) term and should really be avoided altogether.
>
> Best,
> Ole
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 18:49 , Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve, all,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Steve Fisher <dr.s.m.fisher at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Andre,
> >> Will you circulate a new PDF when you want us to read it again?
> >> Steve
> >
> > This would be now -- pdf is attached.  Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers, Andre.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nothing is really difficult...
> > <saga_bindings_python.pdf>--
> >  saga-rg mailing list
> >  saga-rg at ogf.org
> >  https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/saga-rg/attachments/20121216/41d459e9/attachment.html>