Carol, The following are my due items for the submission text: 1. A sentence that introduces the issues in the section: "The problems described in this section are not yet addressed by the current submission. The submission team is intended to address some of them in the future revisions of the proposed specification" 2. Additional wording in the section 2.1 "In the proposed design, authorization logic is encapsulated into an external to the application authorization service. In order to perform an application-level access control, an application requires an authorization decision from such a service and enforces that decision. A simplified schema is depicted in Figure 1 (file high-level-schema.jpg attached). The sequence of the interaction, illustrated by Figure 1, is as follows: 1. An application client invokes an operation on the interface provided by the target object. The invocation is translated by the ORB into a request message. This corresponds to step 1 in the figure. 2. The target object's ORB receives the request and translates it into invocation of the appropriate operation on the target object. 3. While processing the invocation, the target object requires an authorization decision from the ADO by invoking a corresponding operation on the object. The invocation, as in previous case, is translated to a request by the target object ORB. Step 2 in the figure. 4. The request is translated back into invocation of the appropriate operation on the ADO. 5. The ADO completes the invocation and the reply is translated by the ORB into return from the invocation performed in 3. This corresponds to step 3 in the figure. 6. The target object, after receiving an authorization decision, enforces it. If access was granted by the ADO, the target object returns expected results of the invocation. Otherwise, it either returns partial results or raises an exception. Step 4 in the figure. 7. The client receives either results of the invocation or an exception. More detailed description of the design can be found in Section 2.5" 3. Also, I'm browsing through the submission and find that section "Outstanding Issues" would be better read if it was at the very end of section 2. Comments? I think those two items are all what I'm supposed to provide by today. Carol, let me know if you want anything else from me or any help with the submission. Konstantin
high-lelvel-schema.jpg