Richard Alimi wrote: > On Thursday 17 December 2009 10:20:17 am Enrico Marocco wrote: >> Richard, I like your categorization, I think it would be useful having >> it written somewhere (in the requirements doc?) as a reference for >> future discussions. >> >> On the substance of the matter, I agree that we should introduce >> mechanisms in the protocol to address (1), (2), (3a) and (3b), but >> regarding (3c) don't go any further than stating very clearly that ALTO >> servers SHOULD NOT provide anyone with information they don't want to >> get redistributed. > > Agreed, but it might make senses to instead state something like "The > protocol > SHOULD NOT be responsible for preventing unauthorized redistribution of ALTO > information by ALTO Clients."
Yeah, I don't actually care about the wording right now, as long as it makes clear that we are not going to waste time on any kind of DRM-like technology for protecting information distributed by ALTO servers. -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
