IFX Mail Archive: Re: Charter Bashing II

IFX Mail Archive: Re: Charter Bashing II

Re: Charter Bashing II

Graham Klyne (GK@Dial.pipex.com)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:46:23 +0000

At 08:37 24/03/99 -0700, Nick Webb wrote:
>
>>>The transmission and reception of non-alterable documents is an
>>essential >communications medium.
>>
>>How crucial is this idea of "non-alterable"? Should this even be an
>>issue, let alone a charter constraint?
>
>IMHO for this to be used in the same way as f*x, this is a requirement. You
>can't send a contract to a client only to have the client change the
>contract on you.

Agreed -- another exchange I've had suggests different possible
interpretations of "non-alterable" (to my mind, what you describe comes as
a part of "authentication", but maybe "integrity verified" or similar
should also be stated).

>>>E. Capabilities exchange between sender and recipient
>>I suggest: "Document format selection based on confirmed capabilities of
>>sender and/or receiver". ("capability exchange" sounds more like a
>>solution than a goal.)
>
>Not sure this fits in the goals section, but I think we should ensure we
>have a lowest common denominator set of capabilities to ensure that any
>sender and recever pair can successfully exchange a document and have the
>receiver render it faithfully.

Agreed.

I view "capability" mechanisms as a way to lift above a chosen baseline.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)