single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )

[Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>]

 A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym 
 "Ron Rivest <rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu>" typed:
>
> I suggest that we change the object type "auth" to "tag".  Here are the
> reasons:
> 
> (1) "tag" is an english word. "auth" is not.
> 
> (2) Both "auth" and "tag" are nouns.  I think this is better than a verb,
<snip>
> 
> (3) "tag" is very neutral as to semantics, and thus more suitable for the
<snip>
> 
> (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.


Regards,

Bryce

I am not a cypherpunk.  NOT speaking for DigiCash or any other
person or organization.  No PGP sig follows.

---

References:

• "auth" --> "tag" ??
• From: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest)

---

• Prev by Date: may-delegate (propagation control) proposal: "stop-at-key"
• Next by Date: Five-tuple reduction (section 3.3.1) -- necessary fix
• Prev by thread: Re: "auth" --> "tag" ??
• Next by thread: Re: single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread