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

[cme@cybercash.com: Re: Delegate]

Sorry, I meant "keys" (the name owner can bind it to many different _keys_.)

Thanks, Carl...

Return-Path: <cme@cybercash.com>
X-Sender: cme@cybercash.com
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:57:51 -0500
To: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest)
From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
Subject: Re: Delegate
Mime-Version: 1.0

At 09:47 PM 12/17/96 EST, Ron Rivest wrote:
>I like the idea of a "may-delegate" or "final" bit.  I don't see much use
>for the integer version of this.  I think a case should be made for integers
>over bits if one is to adopt integers.   Simpler is better, usually.
>This seems to work well when the recipient is a key.  When the recipient is
>a (e.g. SDSI) name, then the constraint seems to be either overkill (the name
>can't even be bound to a key) or underkill (the name owner can bind it to
>many different names).  


	did you mean "names" or "keys" as your last word above?  If "names", then
I don't understand the sentence.

 - Carl

|Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|207 Grindall Street   PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |