Subject: Re: Poll: What goes in...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:49:07 -0500

Doug replied in part with:
>There was conversation about preserving the signature so that it was
>valid across the wire. This as I recall involved rearranging the
>V{...} blocks so it could be done. (Anyone else remember?)

This was a semi-related topic that had more to deal with preventing 
multiple fantouts and data tampering.  For example, I send a request to 
[email-masked] and [email-masked].  My CS would fan out the 
identical request to both netscape.com and software.com.  Unfortunately 
upon receiving the requests at each site the receiving CS would see a 
TARGET on the other site and attempt to do the same fanouts again.  We 
could get into race conditions and other looping conditions that get 
really really ugly.  (Just picture the 5 way separate domain case between 
the CAP editors!!)  There were also encrypted data considerations for this 
need to as not all CS in the 'chain'/path may/should be able to see the 
encrypted CAP data.

To prevent this routing loop problem, to 'fix' the possible problem of a 
CS blowing signatures by modifying TARGETs (ie: my CS removes 
[email-masked] from the copy that goes to netscape.com and visa versa) 
and to allow the passing of encrypted data thru CS's that do not have the 
key to see what is inside it we discussed splitting the TARGET information 
(or more precisely the command related information) into a separate body 
part.   Last I recall, Steve Mansur had the token to scribe up the changes 
we discussed and send out in the next revision of the draft.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...