On Sat March 5 2005 00:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, fine, it doesn't *require* client modification, but client modification is > necessary for the scheme to offer much benefit. > > It's still a solution looking for a problem.
It's a rough outline of a possible solution to the problem "there is no real way to permit [explicit client] authorization [for message-tampering] even if one wanted to do it". That was not my statement of the problem. However, that issue is related to 2476 and its draft successor due to the assertion that they [2476 and successor] are solutions to abuse of the "gateway" provisions of 2821 which permit message tampering. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
