Re: [AKO Warning - Message fails DKIM verification] Re: Requesting comments on draft-cheney-safe-02.txt

["Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR USARC" <[e-mail]>]

Mr. Falk,

> What they're saying (and I agree) is that the solution you've come up
> with is unlikely to gain much attention -- or implementation.

Specifically, why?  How is that a technology concern for a standards
body?  The potential business failures of my proposal are entirely
separate from the relevance, accuracy, and functionality of the
technology.  If from only a technology perspective this feature is as
sound as I claim it is and as beyond argument as it so far appears what
is the justification in not adopting it as an RFC?


> The economics of this suggested solution aren't at issue.

If that were the case this discussion would not have so completely
devolved from technology considerations to business opinions.  If we can
all contend the current state of technology security failure on the web
an alternative method is qualified.  If that means the economics are not
at issue then there is no further discussion for business consideration
of the proposal at this time.

If this proposal survives all technology and related protocol criticism
I will assume all business failure for its lack of implementation.  At
that point the IETF has every reason to make it an RFC and every reason
not to make it an internet standard.  That is not a problem of this
moment.  It is a brige I will cross when I come to it.  All I need now
is criticism against the technology merits of the proposal.  Each of
your business opinions completely fall outside the field of discussion.




These are the only topics that must be considered.  All others should
be ignored.

Does this thing do all that it says?  Does this thing accomplish its
intended objective to the full extent that it claims? Is the language of
the proposal ambiguous or invite differences of interpretation?  Is the
language diffecult to understand or unclear to read?  Does this thing
make flawed assumptions about other technologies, specifications, or
features external to it?  Does this proposal invite unexpected
collisions from other specifications or protocols?  What are the
technology challenges to this thing?

When a failure of the technology or language is identified I will
correct it until no problems exist or until the technology is
demonstrated to be in uncorrectable conflict, failure, or disarray.

Thanks,
Austin