[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...
Cheers,
Ron
==============================================================================
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).
Ron,
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 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+