Signed-off-by: yanan Lee <energylyn@zju.edu.cn>
Incorrect spelling
Signed-off-by: yanan Lee <energylyn@zju.edu.cn>
spelling error
Signed-off-by: yanan Lee <energylyn@zju.edu.cn>
Incorrect spelling
Signed-off-by: yanan Lee <energylyn@zju.edu.cn>
Revert "Incorrect spelling"
fix some typos
Signed-off-by: Jie Luo <luo612@zju.edu.cn>
fix a typo
Signed-off-by: Jie Luo <luo612@zju.edu.cn>
fix a typo
Signed-off-by: Jie Luo <luo612@zju.edu.cn>
The old text said that the authorizer is expected to determine group
memberships when the authenticator does not. This not true. It is
allowed, but not expected --- and none of the standard authorizers do
it. I tried composing a brief correct statement about this, but the
reviews were mainly aghast that internal details of some non-standard
authorizers were being injected into the discussion of authentictors.
I decided that the better part of valor is simply to delete the whole
topic from here. Besides, it is a conclusion that any reader would
normally draw --- since there is no statement forbidding it (nor
indeed any indication that there might be a reason to forbid it), any
reader would naturally conclude that an authorizer is free to derive
additional intermediate information of any sort and in any way it
likes.