[rfc-i] Scanning non-ASCII text

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 11:50:30 PDT 2012

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>wrote:

> On Sep 28, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What I very much would like to see however is the electronic signatures
> be embedded in the document.
> A big -1 to that. They add no value to 99.999% of people reading an RFC,
> and some software will mark RFCs that have inconsequential bits flipped as
> "invalid" or "dangerous" or some such.

One minute we are being told that the RFC series is such important
scripture that an accidental transcription could cause catastrophe. The
next you are telling us that we can make random changes to bits within the
document without risk of accident. I am pretty sure that both positions are
complete nonsense.

If you don't care about flipped bits then don't check the signature. Duh.

> > At the moment the RFCs are signed and this helps with various court
> demands for production (note that I say helps not solves).
> You have absolutely no evidence of that, do you?

Well that is the use case that I understood motivated Russ when he asked me
for the certificates used to sign the RFCs and that is the case that I made
to Melih when I asked if Comodo would donate them. I have not actually
checked the signatures myself but I am fairly sure Russ did exactly what he
said he would do.

What I am thinking of here is that the XML could simply have an element
<signatures> somewhere in the document which would be the place where the
signatures would be dumped. That would greatly simplify signature
processing as it would make it easy to distinguish the signature scope from
the signatures themselves.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120928/1752975a/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list