On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:03, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Thu Jul 21 16:43:26 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote: >> The only reason we really worry about locking is if there's multiple >> resources in play. For your analogy, there would have to be more than one >> of your wife at home, and their consciousness can fluidly shift between each >> instance, you actually would have to go hunt her down to make sure you're >> talking to the right one (-: > > I've a strong feeling that this is turning into a fietsenstalling, as the > dutch would say. > > Really, there are cases where unlocking on presence isn't the right thing to > do, but if in doubt, unlocking is the safest option. > > We have a clear example of when not to unlock that we all agree on.
<pedantic xmlns='urn:i:am:a:dork'>
<rtt xmlns='urn:xmpp:rtt:0' seq='1'>
<d p='28 n='18'/>
</rtt>
<rtt xmlns='urn:xmpp:rtt:0' seq='2'>
<t p='28'>when not necessary to unlock</t>
</rtt>
</pedantic>
(-:
>
> I think we can move on.
>
Sounds good to me!
- m&m
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
