[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on SPKI draft of 25 March 1997
I think we have five kinds of names for principals:
<key> a public key
<hash> a hash of a public key
<simple-name> a <key-or-key-hash> followed by a single byte string
<general-name> a <key-or-key-hash> followed by a sequence of byte
strings
<relative-name> a sequence of byte strings (assume a <key> of the
issuer)
The proposal has the following syntax:
( public-key ... )
( hash ... )
--no specific syntax--
( fully-qualified-name ...)
( ref ...)
I suggest that the BNF have the five types as above, but that the actual
syntax use the same object type for the last three, as SDSI does:
( ref <key-or-key-hash> name ) for <simple-name>
( ref <key-or-key-hash> name1 name2 ... ) for <fq-name>
( ref name1 name2 ... ) for <relative-name>
and that the implementation check for the appropriate number and type of
arguments (e.g. that there is a real key-or-key-hash when necessary, etc.)
Also: shouldn't the names allowed be general byte-strings and not just tokens?
What if a Chinese user wants to give appropriate names to the public keys
of his colleagues? Shouldn't he be able to used unicode, e.g.
[unicode] chinese-name
(or, following my previous note)
( display-type unicode chinese-name )
instead of just tokens?
Ron Rivest
Follow-Ups: