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

[Ed Gerck <egerck@xxxxxxx>]

Alfred Arsenaul wrote:

>Ed Gerck wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> First, of course, a necessary and sufficient condition for a certificate to be
>> verifiable is for it to be digitally signed.  So, I guess this much is OK and
>> equivalent: "certificate is signed" <--> "certificate is verifiable".  A certificate
>> is verifiable if and only if it is signed -- the "if" is a sufficient condition and
>> the "only if" a necessary condition.
>>
>
>AWA:  Bzzt!  Sorry, that is not correct, but thank you for playing
>anyway.

Alfred:

I regret the nonsense you wrote above -- but I find it nonetheless fitting to
this discussion.

>The fact that is certificate is signed does NOT make it verifiable.

Yes it does, as verifiable as the signature allows it.  If a certificate
IS signed THEN I affirm that this is equivalent to saying that the
certificate is verifiable -- where, of course, "is verifiable" means that
it CAN be verified.  And, of course, the fact that it CAN be verified
does not mean that it MUST be verified.  Of course, it also depends
if the available public-keys match the signature (maybe not, and maybe
you need more keys), if the public-key that matches has not been
revoked, etc.  But, nonetheless the certificate is verifiable and the
result is either YES or NO -- if the certificate is signed.

You are makling a simple confusion in logic and I suggest you re-read
my message. It might be much more instructive than if I would try to
explain it again.

And, please, next time you don't understand something, just please say what
you don't understand.  There is no need to continue the tone I see in your
message and which I surely expect you to recall in the name of civil discourse.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck