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

Re: SDSI name interpretation

>I have to come down on the side of SDSI's original scheme.  What you're
>asking for is covered by SDSI as (rsa.com's DNS's verisign.com) which is
>probably the same as (openmarket's DNS's verisign.com).

No, this is not the same at all. You are assuming that the party rsa considers 
to be DNS is the same party as the one I consider to be DNS. 

The distinction is between the party that X calls Y and the party that X 
believes to be generally known as Y.

The problem with the private namespaces approach is that the namespace is 
unbounded even for a finite number of participants. 

I think that the use of relative names needs to be confined to the one area 
where they are relevant - the establishment of the Web of trust itself. 
Unless there is a clear principle that the parties are all seeking to establish 
a common binding to a particular name I don't see that there is much value in 
the process.