On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 13:53 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Scott ---
>
> Scott -- I think it's both explicit and specific in other requirements
> that the protocol must publish that data, and some of those are MUST
> strength. I really don't see why we need to restate that here.
>
> That and I d
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 16:53, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Scott ---
>
> Scott -- I think it's both explicit and specific in other requirements
> that the protocol
> must publish that data, and some of those are MUST strength. I really
> don't see why
> we need to restate that here.
>
> That and I
Scott ---
Scott -- I think it's both explicit and specific in other requirements
that the protocol
must publish that data, and some of those are MUST strength. I really
don't see why
we need to restate that here.
That and I don't think there is any explicit or implicit proscription
here on w
*** 574,580
blacklist repository.]
9. The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first
! party signatures is found.
10. [PROVISIONAL] A domain holder MUST be able to publish a Practice
which enumerates the acceptable cryptographic a
