- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: 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. As you pointed out, the concept is completely unsuitable from a UI perspective. Dave
Received on Friday, 25 April 1997 12:57:49 UTC