On 2 Sep 2014 16:36 -0400, from [email protected] (Phillip Hallam-Baker): > Since spam is a concern, we might well not want to answer question > 1, or at least not to just anyone.
This is one of the points I raised in [1], and which frankly I felt went unaddressed. > For in person trust anchor exchange, QR codes are the way to go. Only if you're willing to basically limit "whatever we end up discussing" to people who have the ability to process a random encountered QR code in the field. While smartphones and ubiquitous networking is common in many Western countries, designing a protocol around only that seems rather excluding. Just to mention one example, I myself would have no way to process that QR code, and found myself in a discussion on a non-technical mailing list the other day where several people commented about either not having cell phones at all, or having only old "dumb phone" style phones. Do we want to exclude those people from establishing that trust anchor? [1] Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:11:33 +0000 http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/mSmLHfs0kzZNE9LaYdBDjHtN8ok -- Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • [email protected] OpenPGP B501AC6429EF4514 https://michael.kjorling.se/public-keys/pgp “People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup) _______________________________________________ Endymail mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/endymail
