Re: [Isms] wg last call followup - e-mail address

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1 at hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:37:53 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de> said:

WH> No!  That never happens.  A CG that opens a request with a securityName
WH> of "Alice" but a transport address of "bob at example.com" will get back a
WH> securityName of "Alice", ***NOT*** Bob.

JS> Wes or DBH, can you point to the exact place in the IDs where this is
JS> described?

If you'll look at the other message I sent (Subject: "security name
relevant text from the current SSH draft and needed changes"), I listed
the text where it sort-of-ish says the above.  I also suggested that the
text needs to be changed and suggested the beginnings of that text.
Jeff agreed with me.  Read the logical steps in that and if it's agreed
that's what we meant, then we should change the wording to reflect that
so we can move on.

JS> - There should be a better motivation why user at host addresses are
JS> supported (to make NOs work better).

I'm not sure how much we need to concentrate on documenting motivations
for each small item.  But putting such text in wouldn't hurt.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.