On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
>> Statements that imply the i= value is always OPAQUE prevents its
>> utilization for highlighting purposes with respect to identity
>> assurances, even when there is an exact match and this value could
>> be said to not be opaque. This also se
On 2/6/09 2:00 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> RFC4871 is a body of specific text. Either one publishes replacements
> for its text or one publishes a rule that can be used for replacing
> text. The current Errata draft does the former. You want to do the
> latter.
>
> The latter invites one reader
Eliot Lear wrote:
>> It is common for Errata to provide precise corrections. That means
>> supplying
>> the exact text that needs to be changed. While a generic "warning" is
>> comforting, it is not precise.
>
> While I am very much amenable to a different set of text, I do not
> accept your
Dave,
On 2/6/09 4:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Here, the consumer of this information, the verifier, is warned against
> > making use of i=. However, what we are now saying is that practical
> > deployment experience requires a stronger warning; that absent
> > a
