Re: Stab in the dark

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Reliable links [Was: Stab in the dark ]"
• Previous message: Dave Raggett: "Re: Stab in the dark"
• Maybe in reply to: Dave Raggett: "Re: Stab in the dark"
• Reply: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Stab in the dark"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 19:45:13 --100
Message-id: <94Mar18.103646pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Stab in the dark
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 811

> Surely, you can include the md5 signature of the document as a parameter
> tacked onto the URN, using ";" as a separator as Dan suggested. This way
> is safe if the document including the URN is trusted. The actual ownership
> of the document can be checked provided it includes a public key signature
> and related issuer certificates.

If URNs are allowed to refer to multiple formats of documents, or
multiple versions of updating documents, or online streams of
information that you might telnet to, then no, you can't easily
include the MD5 signature of the document.

What you're saying is that you don't have to trust the URN -> URL
resolution process, because you will verify the entire URN ->
<resource> resolution?

I'm not sure I can live with that, although I'd like to think about it
a bit more.