Re: To Be, or NR To Be ...

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

Ed,

>Mathematics does not provide security. The technical difference between
>evidences
>of past actions (what you call NR)  based on strong crypto and, for
>example, audit
>logs is none to me if Khadaffi provides both.
>
>Calling "evidences of past actions" by the name "non-repudiation" and
>pretending
>they are more credible if based on certificates is simply arguing the
>process when the
>attribution is at fault.

Math does provide a basis for security; it the foundation for the public
key crypto that underlies the focus of this WG.  I'm sorry that you dislike
the term "non repudiation" but we are NOT changing this "term of art" in
this standards context.

Steve