On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:39 -0500
Eric Dean <eric(_at_)purespeed(_dot_)com> wrote:
Sorry for the delay. End of year fanaticism is taking its toll.
Yes, there is a general consensus that consent-based methods are
prefered; however, CRI is low hanging fruit and can be used to
validate some assumptions of consent-based. In short, CRI is a subset
of consent-based...but a bit more widely deployed (though not much)
I see where you're heading and but partially agree. Yes, CRI is low
hanging fruit and has a fair bit of public and developer attention
currently, however while a consent token protocol can use a CRI system
and does require similar acked communication exchanges to email-based
CRI, that really seems to be about the limit of the overlap. Consent
protocols don't require CRI, don't need to bear much similarity at all
to CRI, and don't particularly solve similar problems at the human level
(CRI is supplicant based, consent is based on granted audience).
In an abstract sense I look at consent maintenance as a specialised form
of the problem of automatically maintaining current and correct email
addresses for correspondents as they move, change ISPs and jobs, etc.
The core for me is the machine assistance to the maintenance of a human
relationship. How that relationship happened is rather beside the point
as long as the state machine has the proper transforms.
If you are willing to hack code..so am I.
Excellent!
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg