John Leslie writes:
> Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Leslie writes:
> >> Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> the principle i've always followed is that
> >>> "all communications must be by mutual consent"
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the
> >> list.
> >
> > Ok, I'm dense. How do I meaningfully consent to
> > somebody for which I have no a priori information
> > about their consentworthiness?
>
> Much the same as you do with the telephone: some people just pick up,
> expecting to complain to the telephone company if it's an obscene call;
> others check caller-ID, and let an answering machine take any calls
> they don't recognize; still others hire a sectretary to screen their
> calls...
>
> > I mean, I can blackhole them after the fact, but until I have some
> > information to inform my consent, I'm not sure what this principle
> > buys you.
>
> It doesn't necessarily buy you anything: it's a way to look at what
> we're trying to engineer.
Well, I don't understand because it sure seems to
me that the principle requires omniscience in
isolation which is, well, IRTF territory at the
very least. Or is this just a covert way of saying
that we need an e-Yentl?
Note that I'm not against e-Yentl per se. I just
question what this principle actually serves from
an engineering/design perspective. It would be a
lot clearer if the intent is to say that third
party introductions are a necessary possibility,
that it come out and say that instead of leaving
the possibility of oracles explicitly open.
Mike
