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

Re: auth fields

To: ben@algroup.co.uk
Subject: Re: auth fields
From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:54:07 -0500
Cc: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu, blampson@microsoft.com, spki@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <9703142019.aa19671@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
References: <3.0.1.32.19970314142655.00b132e0@cybercash.com>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net

At 08:19 PM 3/14/97 +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> The problem with thinking of such lattices, to me, is that for some real 
>> uses of certs, we'll need to be able to do an occasional PolicyMaker 
>> translation of <auth> -- something that I don't know how to express in such 
>> a form.  A PolicyMaker program would join arbitrary places on such a
>> lattice.
>
>You want to be a bit careful about terminology here, because "join" and "meet"
>are the defined operations on a lattice, if I remember things correctly. I
>suspect that you didn't mean "join" in the lattice sense (and please don't ask
>me to define that ... but I know a man who can ;-). Correct me if I'm wrong!

Good catch, Ben.  I do know the words fork and join for lattices, but hadn't 
been thinking about that when I used the word.  I meant "connect".

 - Carl


+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

References:

Re: auth fields

From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>

Re: auth fields

From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: rules for SPKI <auth> field comparisons
Next by Date: submitted drafts
Prev by thread: Re: auth fields
Next by thread: auth fields
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread