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

Re: Referents and pointers.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "delegation."  SDSI already has a delegation
>mechanism independent of any secure referencing...

SDSI has *a* delegation mechanism, if secure linkages were incorporated into the 
format there would be a second mechanism which would subsume the first. 
Therefore these mechanisms would need to be combined.

>I don't see the need to URI-ify everything, especially keys.  While it's
>tempting to make every element of a certificate a secure pointer to some
>data, I think that'd be overkill.  

You seem to be confusing the idea of a URL, a pointer to data with a URI
which might be a reference or simply a name.

Leaving asside the work of the IETF URI working group there is considerable 
utitily in allowing people to declare names that are *not* to be resolved. 
content types such as text/plain are similar to URNs even though they do not 
have URI syntax. Content types are also only definable by a single entity - 

> I don't think any one group can define what should or should
>not be a reference.  Rather, the option should be available and each
>application can find its own mix.

That is precisely the point I was trying to make. Do not require a certificate 
to incorporate material by reference but arrange the syntax so that any value 
can be made into a reference.

This is not the Web model of hypertext which is a traversal model. The link that 
is clicked on causes a jump. There is another model, transclusion in which the 
referenced material is incorporated.


Follow-Ups: References: