Lockout

[Ken Raeburn]

On Oct 7, 2009, at 11:56, Greg Hudson wrote:
> Note that this change causes lockout state to be dynamically derived
> from the policy.  As a result:
> [...]
> I could see (1) used to justify the addition of a new field, but I  
> still
> don't think it's worth the complexity.  I don't think (2) is a  
> concern.

(1) seems perfectly reasonable to me, unless there's some specific  
real-world end user case you've got in mind that requires it not to  
happen that way.

Ken