Some of the attacks made on one of the speakers seemed overly aggressive to me. And as sometimes happens, the people making the statements were simply misinformed.
The use of machine readable legal terms is not just possible, it is the way most international trade takes place. When I first joined VeriSign, I worked in the practices group where one of our projects was developing that technology in a collaboration with the ICC. That project was probably premature, back in 1997 we had barely started SSL. But INCOTERMS are the basis for most international trade. https://www.export.gov/article?id=Incoterms-Overview Secondly, we keep having people make blanket statements about what the user can understand. If we are going to have people make claims based on 'academic studies' I think it behoves them to state which studies they mean. Because when we recently had this discussion on the Mozilla list, we were once again shown the same decade old study based on 18 participants split into three groups of six that found that users don't understand security signal without training. Cherry picking results to find the result you want is not science. As with the EFF claim that there were over 1000 CAs, this is a zombie prejudice. If people are going to slap down speakers with statements of absolute certitude and ridicule them, better get it right. In this case the statements made were wrong. I think an apology is warranted to the speaker. We are not going to get the best results if people are ridiculed for making statements that are actually correct.
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
