- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:36:39 -0400
- To: "Bugbee, Larry" <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 05:46 PM 6/23/99 -0700, Bugbee, Larry wrote: ><new para> >And given that an electronic signature is still a signature, it should enjoy all the rights >and benefits of other signatures. ...albeit it is not cryptographically strong and verification >is difficult. ></new para> > > Do you think the wording in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3B sufficiently captures that notion? >I'm not sure. I think this is the notion that has been raised in the past, for instance see [1], and Boyer's response which I think is a fair assesment of people's thoughts on it. However, since this question does keep popping up, it'd make for a good requirement, one way or the other. I'm sort of the mind that it should be possible given whatever we do for digital signatures if the design is general. However at some point, it'd help me to see some examples of what people are speaking off given the syntax we end up adopting. I'd be happy to include any specific proposals (2/3 sentences, worded like the other requirements) with respect to electronic signatures in the requirements document. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999AprJun/0049.html _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 25 June 1999 14:36:43 UTC