# Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:29:51 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: R Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Paul Francis: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"

    To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

    Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Jun22.162952pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:29:51 PDT

I object to the phrase 'For the truely paranoid among us' as the
qualifier to 'digital signature techniques could be used to ensure
their veracity'. There are numerous reasons why someone might want
digital signatures to associated with SOAPs, URCs, and other
attributes of data that is transferred over the network, and it is
unacceptable at this point to promote a scheme that doesn't actually
include provisions for dealing with the security aspects, even if they
are not required. That is, not only should you remove the phrase, you
should give an example of how digital signatures would work to sign a
SOAP or a URC.

Larry

(I also don't like a discussion that includes 'www-talk' and 'uri';
either it belongs on one list or the other.)

- Next message: R Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Paul Francis: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"