Subject: Re: non-ephemeral vs. non-repudiation, was Re: proposed key usage text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:19:09 -0500

>      There are multiple definitions of the word "denial" and one of them
> yields a sensible meaning for Menezes' definition - see my elaboration
> below.  If one assumes the most common definition of the word, as most of
> us on the list have done, Menezes' definition is absurd - he must be using
> this other one.
>
>           Tom Gindin

Not that my opinion matters, but I disagree whole-heartedly.   It is my feeling
that Ed is correct in his interpretation of the definition cited.   An example
that
he used a few months ago involved the $50 non-repudiable liability assumed
by U.S. credit-card holders:  by signing the card-holder agreement, you agree
that $50 of any disputed transaction will be non-repudiable, i.e. you must pay
the $50, no matter what.   If the President and the Pope both swear you were
with them that day, you still have to pay.   That's the crux of non-repudiation:
it prevents even truthful denials.

Really though, I thought this issue had been beaten to death, stomped upon,
and had little pins stuck into voodoo doll symbols of itself.   Ed is trying to
get the name changed from "non-repudiation" to "the foo bit is set", so that
his sense of professional ethics will be served.   The resistance to changing
the bit-name stems, I assume, from the fact that many of our bosses will kill
us if we say we "let the IETF strike NR from the standard", because then
all of the banks (BoNY, DuetscheBank, etc) may flee.

Just as security through obscurity is no security at all, liability through
bit-setting
is no liability at all, either.   The attribute does not indicate liability.  It
indicates
that the bit was set by the signer according to the CA, and nothing else.

I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, though.

--ben