[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:Global meaning of tags (was Re: single <auth> per cert)
steen.larsen@ed.nce.sita.int writes:
>While I agree that there is no global namespace, I do not see
>the common-sense extension of this principle to tags. Of course
>many applications and organisations will define their own tags,
>but the Internet community would benefit a lot if we define
>some common tags and a generic extension mechanism a la MIME.
But it seems to me that tags are something which need to be
negotiated between the verifier and the signer and a set of
common conventions will grow out of necessity rather than by fiat.
In the examples you give like http, ftp, telnet, etc. this is
an application of tags to existing protocols, but for most of
the uses for SPKI certs it seems that the tag to be used should
be decided upon by the application developer.
Trying to forecast what tags will be needed is a fools errand,
as MIME has shown. The plethora of x-application/foo types which
become entrenched in applications because of the bureaucratic BS
one needs to wade through before a new type is created is a good
counter example to the ones you suggest. Let the applications
developers decide upon the tags they need and where necessary
convention will grow from this.
jim
References: