Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!dbc
From: dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
Subject: Re: Anarchic protocol ANY (occam2)
Message-ID: <7749@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: 21 May 91 10:56:31 GMT
References: <9105152020.AA15174@theory.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <LLW.91May17095750@corwin.eng.yale.edu> <1758@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> <1991May20.113104.25938@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Organization: University of Southampton, UK
Lines: 15

In <1991May20.113104.25938@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@wotan.top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:

>A secure language implementation detects any violation of the language
>definition, either at compile-time, or at run-time.  If a language cannot be
>implemented in a secure manner, then the language design is flawed.  If a
>language can be implemented in a secure manner, but a particular system fails
>to do so, then the system design is flawed.

This seems a bit hard on occam.  The ANY protocol fairly explicitly
*isn't* secure.  It's a low-level thing which, according to the
manual, is only supposed to be used for communicating with non-occam
peripherals and so forth.  For normal occam communication you're
expected to use checked protocols.

Bryan Carpenter