Using this bare sentence:
> "There are many application scenarios where Atom users will wish to
> apply digital signature, encryption, or both to Atom documents."
is not useful. One cannot read the sentence without asking "What are
they? Can you tell me what inspired the assertion? Please, a hint!"
For example, I couldn't imagine why a feed would be encrypted, and
I'm still skeptical that anyone would actually get the key management
in place for doing this.
I'd take the scenarios and put them into the usual security categories:
1. The feed producer may want to assure the consumers of the authenticity
and integrity of the data.
2. The feed may contain information that must be protected from
eavesdroppers. Such sensitive or confidential data may be encrypted
so that only the intended recipients can read it.
3. Both of the cases 1 and 2 may apply at once, and the data will be
signed and encrypted.
I think Paul's examples are good, but I'd scotch
> There are hundreds
> of other reasons why Atom documents might be signed, encrypted,
> or both.
because, gosh, maybe there are thousands, or dozens, or a few. Who knows?
It's better to let the reader's imagination, now sparked by both general
scenarios and a few example, run rampant.
Hilarie
