On 15 Nov 2005, at 6:07 PM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:16:57AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote:
example imagine a signature which says, I am not vouching for the
binding
between userid and key, but rather I am making a certain assertion
about
this userid or key. If we don't understand this notation the correct
thing is to ignore the signature, and that is in fact what the
spec says
should happen.
Yes, that is my understanding as well. Critical notation means that
it is
essential for the correct interpretation of the signature and without
understanding the notation the signature is meaningless.
Critical notations allow implementors to essentially extend signature
semantics beyond the official set of signature types. We have a
protected
namespace for proprietary extensions, and we have the ability for
legacy
applications silently to ignore unrecognized extensions. It's a good
feature.
I agree.
In cleaning things up, I think I should say that despite discussions,
I don't see anything in what Daniel, Ian, or Hal have said that I
disagree with, and think we're in violent agreement.
Jon