On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. Russ Housley, one of the two Security Area
Directors, has placed a "discuss" vote on the Atom format document.
You can read it at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/
pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=36890>>. Fortunately, it
seems reasonably easy to clear this discuss.
I'm +1 on Paul's changes. One editorial comment:
To be added near the beginning of Section 5 of atompub-format:
Producers of feeds and/or entries, and intermediaries who aggregate
feeds and/or entries, may have sound business reasons for signing
and/or encrypting otherwise-unprotected content. For example,
a merchant might digitally sign a message that contains a discount
coupon for its products. A bank that uses Atom to deliver customer
statements is very likely to want to sign and encrypt those
messages to protect their customers' financial information and to
assure the customer of their authenticity. Intermediaries may want
to encrypt aggregated feeds so that a passive observer cannot tell
what topics the recipient is interested in. There are hundreds
of other reasons why Atom documents might be signed, encrypted,
or both.
I'd cut this back to one sentence saying.
"There are many application scenarios where Atom users will wish to
apply digital signature, encryption, or both to Atom documents."
The examples are non-comprehensive now and will probably look
hopelessly quaint before too long.
But if people prefer Paul's language I can live with it. -Tim
