[Standards] PEP private nodes

[Joe Hildebrand]

On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Pedro Melo wrote:

> Regarding Joe suggestion, the fact that later a client can  
> specifically change the configuration and therefore change the  
> access model to recently published items invalidates IMHO the  
> "private" in private storage. So, I'm OK with the proposal provided  
> that SHOULD becomes a MUST.

This is a good enough argument for me.  +1 for anything ending in  
+private MUST be in whitelist access model.

Pedro, would you be ok with having the whitelist default to empty be  
be able to be changed?  My thinking is that this would only happen at  
the explicit request of the user, and would allow me to configure two  
different accounts that were associated with me to share information  
with one another.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand