- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:39:31 +1100
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 December 2015 at 18:16, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > Stating that "clients might need to use other means of protection..." > addresses the latter architectural statement without acknowledging the > former. We need to go just a bit further and simply state that "all systems > that receive the encrypted object are advised to take what precautions they > can to have some confidence that the object is free of malware." And then > I would suggest several examples are in order, so as not to be too opaque. Yeah, I'm totally on board with that. Your point regarding "intermediary" is well-taken. It was just a convenient handle.
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2015 20:40:00 UTC