W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

RE: useful document identification (was encouraging....)

From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@montgomery.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 06:03:59 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Montgomery%l=EXCHANGE_SERVE-960809130359Z-446@sf-exch-2.montgomery.com>
To: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
assuming that a hash-scheme is not feasible...for reasons unknown to
me...
...a scheme which uses trusted-hosts would require scope.....

granted a hashing algorithm is the most desirable solution.....


>----------
>From: 	Larry Masinter[SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
>Sent: 	Friday, August 09, 1996 2:38 AM
>To: 	Erik Aronesty
>Cc: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Subject: 	Re: useful document identification (was encouraging....)
>
>I suggested using "Content-ID" as a globally unique
>originator-supplied identifier. You replied in one part that 
>
>"this cannot be used in a secure and verifiable fashion"
>
>which I interpret as implying that you'd somehow like the recipient to
>be able to verify that the content actually corresponds to the
>identifier, without having to take the word of the supplier of the
>content.
>
>But later, you argued for content identifiers to have domains, rather
>than global scope. I don't see why anyone would bother providing
>something that was both secure and verifiable and didn't have global
>uniqueness.
>
>Maybe you meant something else by "the scope of the
>content-identifier"?
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 9 August 1996 06:09:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:06 EDT