[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is meaning important?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Could we not make useful progress by ignoring the question of CRLs, trust
models and so on, and concentrating on the interchange aspects of
the system?
We might make progress by ignoring the hard problems, but I think the
end result wouldn't be enough of an improvement over the "x.509 for
the internet" approach of the pkix group.
I'm not saying that these issues do not need to be addressed, just that
there
are many uses for certificates, and many different models for verifying
them,
all of which could be built on a single interchange methodology
(maybe).
I disagree.
If you build something with no understanding of how it will be used,
it won't work very well.
Certificates need to certify something which is meaningful to an
application in a way which the application can trust. If the base
certificate encoding has a flaw which prevents us from doing that, I'd
rather know sooner rather than later..
- Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCUAwUBMVMX4lpj/0M1dMJ/AQECRgP2KvLaQMIrVl61jKCvcLhu91UQLCXhEU/l
tgxsExyEB5qR7g1N4K6aSGbSn0jOz2xH1cvJcwBfTPOj7MdUliBflgGIgCBrfWBE
+UYTi+cbz8jbpPT68r5atLaTqurh3g7Gl3P5yukUUNBmjlcog9YNWGhPpNcHj4Pj
nJcYzJR/fg==
=SAdi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
References: