- From: Jonathan Stark <stark@commerce.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> > > > 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
Received on Friday, 25 April 1997 14:22:01 UTC