Introduction
"Challenge Response systems intend to authenticate a sender's
identity and
determine if a sender originated a message to a particular recipient."
Suggested change:
Challenge Response systems intend to validate message origination for a
designated recipient.
Yes, the by-product of post-midnight, caffeinated stupors is that sentences
make sense that in fact don't.
Rationale:
C/R systems may not be required to authenticate identity (perhaps
they should
not, that does not matter) however the basis intent is to
validate using some
mechanism (automated or manual) a messages originator, where
origination may be
a human or machine actor. Additionally, the use of 'particular'
connotes for
me that any 'addressed' recipient may be the subject of
'determination'. IMHO,
the more appropriate term would be designated recipient as that
for me connotes
an association between the originator and the recipient.
agreed
On a slightly different point, in my terms a sender and originator are
functionally equivalent but since your paper also addresses
possible machine
actors I use the term originator as a semantic abstraction.
<insert>
Message Originator
An actor, human or machine, that causes the insertion of an
original or revised message into the message transfer system.
Sender
The nomenclature used to designate a message originator or a
process acting as a origination point for a message in the MTS.
Sender is also a message header.
</insert>
Would also be a good insertion into our taxonomy.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg