[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )
A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym
"Ron Rivest <email@example.com>" typed:
> I suggest that we change the object type "auth" to "tag". Here are the
> (1) "tag" is an english word. "auth" is not.
> (2) Both "auth" and "tag" are nouns. I think this is better than a verb,
> (3) "tag" is very neutral as to semantics, and thus more suitable for the
> (4) [especially for Carl] "tag" is shorter than "auth" !
Eh.. Fine. I vote "Yea". Either Ron Rivest is full of great
ideas, or else he's just a convincing salesman, cause every
time I read one of his articles I end up thinking "Of course!
What a good idea!".
On to a more technical issue, I'm still trying to understand
the issues about having single or multiple <auth> (cum <tag>)
fields in a cert. But even without understanding the issues,
can I suggest that having only one is simpler, and is easier to
use in simple applications? Perhaps more complex applications
can (a) add a layer of abstraction on top of SPKI to handle
certs in bundles and/or (b) wait for SPKI 1.1.
Thus, while admitting my complete ignorance of the subject,
I move that we have a single tag in each cert, and then we can
figure out the best way to make multiple-tag systems while
developers are already using our single-tag certs.
I am not a cypherpunk. NOT speaking for DigiCash or any other
person or organization. No PGP sig follows.