[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.