Re: A linguistic note on unverifiable transactions

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Pipelining and compression effect on HTTP/1.1 proxies"
• Previous message: Kevin J. Dyer: "Re: Issues-list item "DISPOSITION""
• In reply to: David W. Morris: "Re: A linguistic note on unverifiable transactions"

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Koen Holtman wrote:
> 
> > David W. Morris:
> > [...]
> > >
> > >Actually 'unverifiable transaction' is bad spec termnology as it implies
> > >there might be a verifiable transaction.
> > 
> > ??
> > 
> > Verifiable transactions do exist, and are defined by the spec.
> 
> That I understand ... I guess my point wasn't clear. The whole notion of
> verifiable here is rather obscure as the english word means something to
> me much stronger than the usage in the spec.  The implication is along the
> lines of a certificate authority having done research to verify the
> identity of the origin and providing a CA to that end.  When I initially
> studied the various drafts, I found it confusing because I had to keep
> reminding myself exactly how the termnology was defined in the draft.

There is actually a proposed addition (seperate RFC?) that explores
the idea of the CA type entity in this context.  "Verifiable," in that
expanded context, seems to be very appropriate.

Jonathan

• Next message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Pipelining and compression effect on HTTP/1.1 proxies"
• Previous message: Kevin J. Dyer: "Re: Issues-list item "DISPOSITION""
• In reply to: David W. Morris: "Re: A linguistic note on unverifiable transactions"