RE: Common misconception #10. was RE: NEW Data type forcertificate

[Ed Gerck <egerck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote:

>Ed,
>
>	This has gone way off topic for PKIX. I don't see a limitation
>of the PKIX infrastructure being discussed, clearly the types of insurance
>you envision can be supported by PKIX. If a customer wants to purchase a
>cert carrying such insurance the technology clearly is not the impediment.

Phill:

If you believe that insurance is a topic for PKIX, pls go ahead.

If you believe that one-sided PKIX subscriber-CA insurance can solve
the security problem of many-sided PKIX user-subscriber security, pls
also go ahead.

>
>	I really don't think that the tone of your argument is suitable
>for a PKIX discussion which has already gone off topic. You started off
>with a blanket assertion that every PKIX CA must inevitably disclaim
>all legal liability. That is simply not true.
>

My assertion was "every PKIX CA must inevitably disclaim all legal
liability to the user" -- not to the subscriber.

The fact that you, again, want to put a blank denial over a
qualified denial is misleading to say the least.

If you think that you can use the tone you want but others cannot
disagree in technical terms, as I did, then this is a "hollier than
thou attitude" which would be slightly amusing if PKIX would be
private and personal -- but which is unacepatble for a IETF
discussion, IMHO.

BTW, to say that it "is simply not true" is too simple -- sorry, no
cigar. 

>	I really don't think I want to continue to debate with someone
>who titles their emails 'common misconception #10'. It betrays an
>apparent intention to demonstrate the ignorance and wrong headedness
>of the other side.
>

No, it says what it is -- a common misconception, also rather old.
BTW, you did not show any counterarguments.

>	You appear to be arguing that the emperor has not clothes and that you
>are the only taylor who can dress him. 

That is again a blank statement you put out. But, again, I refuse to
be bound by words I did not say. Please, do not keep trying that
because I will keep denying I said so -- with the difference that I
can prove that I did not say it. Truth begins at samll values.

>Whether or not we accept your first
>premise I doubt many accept your second. The emperor has sufficient clothes
>for the weather he is currently going out in and by the time the weather is
>worse he will have donned his multi-layer alpine ski wear and hazardous
>environment encounter suit.

I doubt your own statement is on-topic for PKIX. To say that
something is "sufficient" demands proof -- which you did not show,
while I did show otherwise. Hence your paragraph above has no content
I acn measure.

Just don't try to convince the whole world that everyone should buy
into it just because you say it will be just fine. The very fact that
you did not answer one of the questions I posed already shows that
you are still talking about emperors while the Internet is already
beyond democracy.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br