RE: Fwd: Surreptitious Forwarding

Hi Don,

> my text is not too specific for XML-Sig, unless mine were to
> be that document's only caution against misuse of signatures.
> i agree that for either document, my text is not by itself a
> sufficient caution.  each document should also include the
> other, more axiomatic warnings, as appropriate. for example,
> as you say, joseph's original text ("...not signed but part
> of an envelope...", quoted above) should of course be included
> as a separate bullet-item, so that it won't be confused with
> my point about signed-&-encrypted messages.
> thank you for your comments.
> 					- don davis, boston

I had noticed your axiomatic separation, but apparently forgot when I read
your proposed text. I misread your intent as wanting to only have the
signature-and-encryption warning. I agree with what you state above. 


Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 09:34:24 UTC