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

Re: rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons

To: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
Subject: Re: rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@AURORA.CIS.UPENN.EDU>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:21:04 +0000
Cc: spki@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:53:36 EST." <3.0.1.32.19970310125336.050a2068@cybercash.com>
Posted-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:21:04 +0000
Return-Receipt-To: angelos@AURORA.CIS.UPENN.EDU

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


I think we should go for the first option (the default - fields are
alphanumeric); it's the simplest and easiest to implement in whatever
environment. Having a file specifying rules is probably too burdensome
for, say, smartcards and it's not powerful enough for the most complex
applications. Programs for handling auths is the most powerful
approach, but it should not be the default (and i don't think you
intend it to be). 
- -Angelos


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMyWUf70pBjh2h1kFAQEyuwP/Zi0tIM34Z8DEh33dfYa45alfHOCuXzKN
DndWnizRwVekvVzKoQevoJNjuxnkgsFgWk2liHXGEpt6scpANWPbMvK2JsUcT1qj
i5/JTyEJz2PvzYO2ye4gDFxUTAYWYF5IRPMAt7ZKZUcgdQ0RDImfojx+BzM7e2wk
NEPT9DAuYG8=
=qpIX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:

rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons

From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>

Prev by Date: Re: encoding: SPKI vs. SDSI
Next by Date: Re: encoding: SPKI vs. SDSI
Prev by thread: rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons
Next by thread: Re: rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread