[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: signture mode and non-repudiation

To: "Mason, Shane" <smason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: signture mode and non-repudiation
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:53:08 -0500
Cc: "'Dan Harkins'" <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Hugo Krawczyk'" <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>, francisco_corella@xxxxxx, ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Message from "Mason, Shane" <smason@blockade.com> of "Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:19:07 EST." <>
Sender: owner-ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> So non-repudiability and repudiability are defined as proof or lack of proof
> _to_be_taken_to_a_third_party_for_adjudication_?  They have no meaning
> outside of a three+ party scenario?

Cryptography isn't needed in a <3 party scenario.

					- Bill

References:
- RE: signture mode and non-repudiation
  - From: Mason, Shane

Prev by Date: RE: signture mode and non-repudiation
Next by Date: RE: signture mode and non-repudiation
Previous by thread: RE: signture mode and non-repudiation
Next by thread: RE: signture mode and non-repudiation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread