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

Re: yet another <auth> type

At 09:20 AM 2/21/97 -0500, Moltar Ramone wrote:
>I find this problematic, because it'll bring about is-a-person sorts of

I see the addition of this type, and others that may or may not be
useful/valuable/worthwhile as a distraction from the more pressing needs
of getting SDSI/SPKI through the IETF process, getting sample
parsers out in circulation, getting sample certs for people to test
interoperability, etc.

I'm making a tiny working assumption that adding more <auth> fields once
we've fielded SDSI/SPKI is simple. If not, then perhaps work is
needed to make it simple.

I recommend tabling this suggestion. Consider it sometime down the line.


Pat Farrell    CyberCash, Inc. 			(703) 715-7834
#include standard.disclaimer