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

["J. Lasser" <jlasser@goucher.edu>]

On Apr 2, Bryce <bryce@digicash.com> wrote:

> Hm.  It still seems to me that the natural thing to do, in
> keeping with the SPKI precepts, is to declare that there are no
> global meanings of tags, that trying to _make_ global meanings of
> tags is going to get you into a can of worms, and that you can
> accomplish what you want anyway by using local meanings of tags.

I'd ditto this... is this a sort of parallel to the SDSI claim that there
is no (useful) global namespace?  It seems to me a common-sense extension
of that philosophy.

Jon
-- 
Jon Lasser (410)433-7495                    jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/            PGP key = 1024/EC001E4D
      "Flap your ears, Dumbo!  The feather was only a trick!"

---

Follow-Ups:

• Global meaning of tags (was Re: single <auth> per cert)
• From: Steen Larsen <steen.larsen@ed.nce.sita.int>

References:

• Re: single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )
• From: Steen Larsen <steen.larsen@ed.nce.sita.int>
• Re: single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )
• From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Light-weight certificate revocation lists ?
• Next by Date: Re: Light-weight certificate revocation lists ?
• Prev by thread: Re: single <auth> per cert (was Re: "auth" --> "tag" ?? )
• Next by thread: Global meaning of tags (was Re: single <auth> per cert)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread