- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:15:53 PST
- To: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
I think that this debate has been revisited sufficiently that we're no longer making good progress. I am looking for ways of wrapping up the discussion, rather than repeating (endlessly) arguments made and remade again. There is a significant divergence of views, and many remain steadfast that the original tradeoff in 2109 between privacy and capabilities are well considered. I think there's also a significant counter-opinion developing. I would suggest -- as an alternative to continuing on the mailing list -- that we ask those who would prefer to see a different resolution on the issue of unverifiable transactions to write a separate internet draft, outlining what the protocol should say instead and addressing the issue of user privacy to the same detail as RFC 2109. Perhaps if we can see a complete design which adequately protects user privacy, we can consider the alternative with sufficient technical detail. Is this OK? Can we close down discussion on this point until we have a fully worked out alternative from someone? Thanks, Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 14:10:59 UTC