[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The word "certificate"
>Subj: Re: My comments on the X/Open PKI requirements document
At 11:46 AM 4/5/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At least on SPKI, I think we have realized that there are two, almost
>totally unrelated problems being addresses. These are the problems of
>establishing trust and establishing a "true name". For many applications
>(e.g. distributed capability systems), you don't need "true names", but you
>do need to be able to establish that the caller indeed possess the
>capability being invoked (A form of trust). (The interesting item here is
>that you don't absolutely need certificates for distributed capabilities.)
I have the habit of using the word "certificate" to mean any signed
statement while I'm sure some others use the word to refer only to a signed
binding between a name and a key.
Which way were you using the word in your last sentence?
- Carl
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430 http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|2100 Reston Parkway PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Reston, VA 22091 Tel: (703) 620-4200 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+