UI terminology for calculated validities

[Hauke Laging]

Am Do 01.05.2014, 23:34:30 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor:

> I tend to see it the other way; i'd want to know specifically how the
> proposed information is supposed to be useful *first*, and then (if
> it's a compelling enough case) we can talk about how to specify it.
> 
> --ask-cert-level fails this test, for example.  We don't actually make
> use of that data in any certificate validation algorithm

This is a clear mix up of cause and effect.

You don't discuss a new technical solution but you point at the rather 
trivial (because always given; otherwise no change would be necessary) 
fact that the *current* technical solution limits the use of this 
information. From that you conclude that no change is necessary. To me 
that is quite the opposite of your own demand.


Hauke
-- 
Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/unterstuetzer/
http://userbase.kde.org/Concepts/OpenPGP_Help_Spread
OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20140502/f1e30d86/attachment.sig>