[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SPKI getting something done would be nice....


At 11:20 PM 6/16/97 +0100, Angelos D. Keromytis wrote:
>In message <33A5E1AA.68C52798@verisign.com>, Peter Williams writes:
>>Why is it undesirable to use a "MIME/PGP-signed bodypart"
>>as an SPKI cert? (which is what I suggested)?
>I suppose you are aware that the 'S' in SPKI stands for "Simple". I
>can't imagine an SPKI library having a MIME encoder/decoder...

Angelos and Peter,

	I'm not sure I see a conflict.  Of course, I'm coming into this
discussion very late.  I haven't had time to catch up on my SPKI mail, much
less work on the draft tonight!  I also need to prepare slides for Wednesday
(I think).

	It is clear to me that almost anything certificate-like (including signed 
messages, certificates, ACL entries) reduces to a 5-tuple for normal SPKI 
reduction (unless it is complex enough to require a program like PolicyMaker).

	It seems also clear that we can have volunteer programmers out there who 
write modules to convert from various formats to 5-tuples -- e.g., X.509v3, 
PGP/MIME, PGP signed keys, DNSSEC signed keys, SET certificates, ....  Once 
something has been converted to a 5-tuple, it can not only be reduced as 
part of a 5-tuple chain (loop), but the resulting


can be signed by Self, yielding an SPKI/SDSI certificate for X to use for 
however long V lasts, to save time and energy.

 - Carl

Version: 5.0
Charset: noconv


|Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|207 Grindall Street   PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |

Follow-Ups: References: