To:
kent@songbird.com (Kent Crispin)
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Fri, 3 Dec 99 11:24:03 JST
In-Reply-To:
<19991202175614.A28169@songbird.com>; from "Kent Crispin" at Dec 2, 99 5:56 pm
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Last WG call for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-opreq-02.txt.
Kent; > > > You are saying that telephone and fax were more serure than unsigned > > > email. > > > > > > > Telephone is secure only in it's billing, and fax is only as secure > > as telephony. Caller-ID and other signal messaging functions are > > also not guaranteed. > > > > Anyone could call or fax and say they are someone that they > > are not. > > > > I think this is a little vague for a security measure. > > Yes, it is vague, but that's the way it is. "Security" isn't exactly > the characteristic being looked for in any case. "Authenticity" gets > it a little better. Obviously, a telephone conversation with someone > you know personally gives you *far* more assurance than an unsigned > email from that same person. Your wrong assumption is that operators always have personal relationship between them. With such an assumption, email conversation works almost as good as phone one (though it takes longer to exchange several mails). Masataka Ohta