Subject: RE: Current signature formats insufficient

From: Adrian McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:29:12 +1000

Michael & Simon;

I do not agree with your position.

You either agree or you do not agree.  The positions are mutually
exclusive.  The issue of qualification if put forward only complicates
the situation.  If you want to qualify then you must in my opinion
fall within the "do not agree" position.  

Why complicate the situation with:

> 1. Strongly agree
> 2. Agree
> 3. Agree with reservations
> 4. Agree with a certain doubt

What is the difference between agree and strongly agree.  It does not
add anything by qualifying the agreed position.  A certainly doubt
that a Court would take notice of varying positions of agreement.  You
either agree or do not agree.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Simon McMahon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 2:09 PM
To: Michael Zolotarev; Tony Bartoletti; P.J. Ponder
Cc: Paul Koning; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Current signature formats insufficient

Michael wrote :
> Using a special key usage bit to specify your agreement is not very
> practical. Why? You'd have to define the following set:
>
> 1. Strongly agree
> 2. Agree
> 3. Agree with reservations
> 4. Agree with a certain doubt
>

Thats right - the content contains all the details about what and how
much
committment is being made. The signature format is irrelevant accept
that it
has to be validatable.

Simon.

---

From: "Simon McMahon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:46:49 +1000

> fall within the "do not agree" position.
I think that is the idea - to weaken the level of comittment regarding the
signed content to the point where I am not legally liable for it. So you are
right that there should only be "agree" and "not-agree" - 1 bit. But that
point should be made in the content or by using a non-NR key not in the
signature encoding.

Simon.