- From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@montgomery.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 06:03:59 -0700
- 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 UTC