[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                         |